Suresh S/O Kisan Jagtap And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra, Ministry Of Rural Development Department, Mumbai And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2692 OF 2017 PETITIONERS :1. Suresh Kisan Jagtap, aged about 45 years, Occ. Nil R/o. Rudha, Tq. Kamalb, Dist. Yavatmal

2. Shankar Dadaji Awalankar, aged about 48 years, Occ. Nil R/o. Shrirampur, Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal ...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharshtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.

3. Gram Panchayat, Rudha, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal

4. Gram Panchayat, Shrirampur, Dist. Yavatmal

5. Additional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanket Lambat, Advocate h/f Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for petitioners Shri S.M.Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 11/02/2021.

1] Heard Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Godeswar, learned AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 5. None appears for other respondents.

2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3] The only point involved in this petition is as to whether the qualifications which the petitioners claim to possess had an equivalence with the qualifications which were required. The required qualification was H.S.S.C pass, as against which the petitioners claim to have the qualification of a certificate of Uttama and Bhasharatna of Hindi Vidyapeeth, which they claim to be equivalent to H.S.S.C. This claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the respondent No.2 by the order dated 27.09.2016, by holding that there is no equivalence between the two qualifications. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate the equivalence between the above two qualifications.

4] Mr. Sanket Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a point of time consequent to the date on which the engagement of the petitioners as Gram Sewak was made, two of them have acquired the qualification of H.S.S.C, however, that would not relate back to the date on which the appointment letter dated 20.12.2014, was issued, on which date admittedly they did not have the requisite qualification.

5] The petition does not have merit. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Rvjalit Digitally signed by Rajesh Jalit Date:

2021.02.15 17:49:30 +0530 Rajesh Jalit