Vaijnath Nivruttirao Raner v. The State Of Mah And ORS.

1 WP 7541 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 7541 of 2004 * Vaijnath s/o Nivruttirao Raner, Age 28 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Sakhala Plot, Lohgaon Road, Parbhani.

.. Petitioner.

Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2) The Collector, Osmanabad.

3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

4) Navnath s/o Popat Kakade, Age 28 years, R/o Wagholi, Taluka & District Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ---- Shri. S.P. Koli, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.T. Veer, for petitioner.

Shri. R.V. Dasalkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Shir. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri. T.B. Bhosle, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ----

2 WP 7541 of 2004 Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Date : 12 July 2017 JUDGMENT:

1) The petition is filed to challenge the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.4 on the post of Gram Sevak on contract basis and also for giving direction to respondent No.3 to issue appointment order of the said post in favour of the petitioner. Both the sides are heard.

2) The petitioner and the respondent No.4 had participated in the process of selection of Gram Sevak which was started after publishing advertisement on 17-12003. The petitioner had applied from open category claiming that he was "project affected person" and he was entitled to get the post as project affected person. From the same category respondent No.4 had made application. Interviews were conducted and then names of the persons as per merit were published by the committee of respondent No.3, Zilla Parishad. It is the grievance of the

3 WP 7541 of 2004 petitioner that he is more meritorious than respondent No.4 but appointment was given to respondent No.4. 3) It is the contention of the petitioner that as he was B.Sc. Agri. and had secured 74.10% marks in the said degree course, his qualification was better and higher than the qualification of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was H.S.C. and he is holding Diploma in Agriculture. It is contention of the petitioner that due to this circumstance preference ought to have been given to him. This Court has carefully gone through the conditions published in the advertisement. They show that both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were eligible as they were satisfying the requirement of educational qualification. The conditions do not show that priority was to be given to persons holding degree.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 drew attention of this Court to the policy of the Government published in Government Circular dated 13-9-2000.

4 WP 7541 of 2004 project affected person category, were to be informed to the Collector and then the Collector was to send such of the candidates who could have been appointed on the basis of wait list prepared by him. Seniority in the wait list was to be observed. In the present matter reply is filed to the effect that the name of the petitioner was not informed by Collector and the name of respondent No.4 was informed by the Collector and so the appointment was given to respondent No.4. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the said policy of the Government and in ordinary course the person who got affected first needs to be given priority. Due to this circumstance this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the matter and give relief claimed. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl