Rupali Deelip Gosavi v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And ORS.

AGK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6969 OF 2019 Rupali Deelip Gosavi

...Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan i/by Talekar & Associates for the petitioner.

Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent no. 1/State. Mr. Asif I. Patel for respondent no. 2/MPSC.

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & V. G. BISHT, J.

DATE:

MAY 4, 2022 P.C.:

1.

Dismissal of the petitioner's original application (OA No. 63 of 2018) by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) by its order dated 8th May 2019 has given rise to this writ petition. 2.

The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Excise Inspector. Although it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by Ms. Ayyappan, learned advocate that the petitioner had applied for consideration in the open category (female), she was considered as a reserved candidate belonging to NT(B). Having scored 125 marks, the petitioner could not be accommodated on any post reserved for NT(B) candidates. However, the last ranked candidate in the open (female)

category, who obtained 115 marks, was appointed on a post for the open (female) category candidates.

3.

We have ascertained from Mr. B. V. Samant, learned AGP appearing for the respondents that in all 300 posts were sought to be filled in by the process in question and that one

(1) post has been kept reserved owing to pendency of the original application before the Tribunal and this writ petition. 4.

We have perused the judgment and order dated 4th March 2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2019 (Lata Shyamrao Sangolkar v The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) wherein the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2021) 4 SCC 542 (Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) was considered and relief granted to the petitioner considering the factual position that had such petitioner been considered as an open female category candidate and not a reserved candidate, she could have been appointed on a post in the open female category.

5.

Mr. Samant does not dispute that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in Lata Shyamrao Sangolkar (supra).

6.

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal stands quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the following directions: a) The Petitioner shall be entitled to appointment as Excise Inspector on the post that has been kept

vacant, immediately, but not later than a fortnight from date upon compliance of all formalities; b) If the petitioner successfully completes the period of probation, she shall be confirmed in service; c) Although the petitioner's appointment shall be prospective, she shall have the benefit of notional appointment on and from the date whosoever amongst the respondents 3 to 7 was appointed first, and such notional appointment shall be counted for the purpose of the petitioner's retiral benefits, should she be confirmed in service; and d) Apart from retiral benefits on the basis of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any other benefits, including seniority.

7.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date:

2022.05.05 17:56:11 +0530 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT