Santosh Popat Survase v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 38 WRIT PETITION NO.2030 OF 2018 SANTOSH POPAT SURVASE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ghute Patil Kishor J. and Mr. P.R. Kadam AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. V.M. Kagne Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: Mr. Vibhute Vinod M. ...

CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE :

06/08/2019 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner assails the communication dated 08.08.2017 denying the petitioner appointment to the post of Health Assistant (Male). The appointment is denied on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the documents for verification within time. 2.

Mr. Ghute, the learned counsel submits that the respondent have advertised the post for Health Assistant (Male). One post is for O.B.C. and two posts are for Open Category. The essential qualification

for the said post is S.S.C. and 90 days working experience of RT Worker under the National Malaria Eradication Scheme. The petitioner had submitted all the documents for verification. The documents were forwarded to the District Health Officer for verification but there was no response. The petitioner is the only eligible candidate now. No candidate is appointed. The information is also received to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. The certificate has been issued by the District Malaria Officer that the petitioner has worked for 179 days. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad has also verified the documents on the basis of the letter issued by the District Malaria Officer and has confirmed about the petitioner having worked for morethan 90 days. According to the learned counsel there was no reason to negate the candidature of the petitioner.

3.

Mr. Vibhute, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was required to submit the documents within the stipulated period. The documents were not submitted. In view of that the petitioner cannot claim any right. Even otherwise, the persons in the select list does not get a vested right to claim appointment.

4.

We have considered the submissions. The selection committee had enlisted 6 candidate and had directed the verification of documents. It seems that the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad and the committee had examined the documents of the petitioner. The chart filed on record by the petitioner discloses the said fact. The documents that were verified are the appointment orders. The muster register, the payments make to the petitioner for the work done as a seasonal spraying worker along with page numbers the same is mentioned. The chart is reproduced as under:-

5.

It appears that the documents were verified by the authority/committee concerned. Once the documents are already verified by the authority/committee it will not be appropriate for the respondent to state that the petitioner had not submitted the documents.

Without submission of the document, the authority/committee could not have verified all the documents. 6.

In view of the above, the impugned communication to the effect that the petitioners claim cannot be considered as he did not submit the documents within the stipulated period, does not stand to reason.

7.

In light of the above, the impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The respondent shall consider the verification done by the committee/authority and all the documents and shall take decision with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. The same shall be done within a period of 2 months. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) habeeb