Bombay High CourtWP/2094/2016rejected at admission stage

Rameshwari Sukhdev Solankar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-06-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde3 pages

1 2-wp2094.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2094 OF 2016 Rameshwari d/o. Sukhdev Solankar ..Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

..Respondents -- Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, advocate for petitioner Mr.A.G.Magre, AGP for respondent no.1 - State Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocate for respondent no.4 -- CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 08, 2016 PER COURT :

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the contents of the petition and the documents produced on record.

2] The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied appointment to the post of Assistant Civil

2 2-wp2094.odt Engineer on the sole ground that the petitioner has not submitted Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued by the competent authority. He submits that the petitioner applied for the said post from Open Women Category and clearly mentioned in her application that she does not possess Non-Creamy Layer Certificate. Therefore, according to him, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, her appointment to the said post should not have been denied by the respondents/authorities.

3] The learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that from the Open Women Category, a candidate who has secured 126 marks has been selected to the said post. The petitioner has secured 112 marks and therefore, in view of the merit of the petitioner, she has been denied appointment to the said post.

3 2-wp2094.odt 4] Upon considering the rival submissions and the documents on record, it is clear that a candidate from the Open Women Category who has secured 126 marks has been given appointment to the said post. Admittedly, the petitioner, while filling the application for appointment to the said post has mentioned that she does not fall under the Non-Creamy Layer. Therefore, the question to consider the petitioner's candidature from Non-Creamy Layer would not arise.

5] For the reasons afore stated, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition. The petition stands rejected.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] kbp