Imran Salim Sayyad v. The Union Of India And Others
1 914 wp5535-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 914 WRIT PETITION NO. 5535 OF 2018 IMRAN SALIM SAYYAD
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. H. D. Deshmukh. ASG for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.B. Deshpnade AGP for respondent : Mr. A.P.Basarkar .....
CORAM:
S.V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED :
12th JUNE, 2018.
ORDER :
1.
Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement is issued inviting applications for selection of LPG distributors for Gramin Vitarak for village Nathapur, Tq. & District Beed. Many candidates including the petitioner have applied. Same is meant for OBC category. One of the essential condition is submission of non creamy layer certificate. Thirteen candidates have not submitted non creamy layer certificates as required.
2.
The petitioner has filed complaint with regard to 13 candidates. The complaint is returned on the ground that the complaint would only be entertained against the selected candidates. The petitioner relies on the communication made to him about non issuance of non creamy layer certificate to the 13 candidates from Sub Divisional Office at Beed, Pathri and Majalgaon.
3.
Reading the guidelines, more particularly Clause 8(B) (c) of Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPC
2 914 wp5535-18 Distributors, selected candidate has to submit the certificate that he belongs to Other Backward Class and fulfill the non-creamy layer status within 7 days from the date of intimation of selection. The complaint of the petitioner is not rejected, however, is only returned back on the ground that if the candidate is selected then only such complaint should be entertained against the selected candidate. Considering the guidelines, the petitioner would have an opportunity to raise grievance against the selected candidates, if selected candidates are ineligible.
7.
In the light of above, at this stage, we are not inclined to entertain the complaint of the petitioner. 8.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE mahajansb/