Rashmee @ Rashmi D/O. Ramkrushna Kakade v. State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of Rural Devpt. And Panchayat Raj Dept., Mumbai And ORS

2025:BHC-NAG:7901-DB 1/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5224 OF 2024 Rashmee @ Rashmi d/o Ramkrushna Kakade, Aged about : 28 Years, Occu :

Educated Unemployed, R/o Urvashi Nagar, Kathora Road, Amravati, Tahsil and District Amravati.

... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.

District Selection Committee, Through its Chairman/the District Collector, Washim, District Washim.

3.

District Selection Committee, Through its Member/the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Washim, District Washim.

4.

District Selection Committee, Through its Member Secretary/the Deputy Chief Officer (General), Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Washim, District : Washim.

5.

District Selection Committee, Through its Member/the Deputy Chief Officer (Panchayat), Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Washim, District Washim.

6.

Vijaya d/o Sukhdeo Khade Aged about : 32 Years, Occu : Service, R/o

2/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt Panchashil Nagar, Karanja Road, Mangrulpir, Tahsail Mangrulpir, District Washim.

Email:vijayakhade12@gmail.com.

... RESPONDENTS Mr. V. B. Gawali, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Addl. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. M. L. Vairagade, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. S. A. Marathe, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

CORAM

: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : JULY 14, 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 11, 2025.

JUDGMENT [PER PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] .

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2.

By this Petition, Petitioner's claim for the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) from Scheduled Caste Women reservation category by setting aside the selection of Respondent No.6 from that category which was published vide selection list by Respondent Nos.2 to 5 on 19/8/2023. 3.

Brief facts of the Petition are as under :

3/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt On 5/8/2023 Respondent Nos.2 to 5 i.e. District Selection Committee issued an advertisement to fill up the various posts of Group-C for Zilla Parishad, Washim. As per this advertisement No.1/2023, the specific instructions were given to the candidates that before applying for the post, they should open the website and go through it thoroughly and if found some objections, that objections will be satisfied on the helpline number given in the advertisement. It is further stated in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, particularly under clause - 3.13, that candidate should state his name, social category, from which category he/she applying for the post, date of birth, mobile number and email ID etc.. It is further made clear that if Applicant failed to submit these details, Zilla Parishad, Washim would not be responsible for their rejection of application. 4.

It is further submitted that according to the advertisement, 16 posts were earmarked for Gramsevak (Contractual). Out of these 16 posts, as per the reservation, three posts falls in Scheduled Caste category. Out of these 3 posts, one was reserved for Scheduled Caste Women category and two posts falls in horizontal reservation i.e. women reservation. This categorisation was specifically published along with the advertisement published by the District Selection Committee.

4/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt 5.

That in furtherance of the advertisement issued by the Respondents, Petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, submitted her online application dated 25/8/2023. Under the column of "category of candidate" she had specifically mentioned as 'Scheduled Caste' (SC), then under the caption of 'applied under which category,' she has mentioned, 'Scheduled Caste', however, under the caption, 'Are you applying under women reservation?', she has mentioned 'No'. This fact is clear from her application, which is placed on record as Annexure - B (Page 71). The Petitioner also received E-receipt (Candidate's copy) after tendering her application. In the said E-receipt also it is specifically mentioned that Petitioner has applied from General Scheduled Caste category.

6.

That Petitioner accordingly participated in the recruitment exercise undertaken by the Respondent Nos.2 to 5, in view of the examination of the candidates conducted on 20/6/2024. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3, on 26/7/2024 published provisional combined list of qualified candidates in descending order of marks for the recruitment of the post of Gramsevak. In the said list, from General Scheduled Caste category, one Milind Ramchandra Bhise obtained 158 marks and one Sachin Namdeo Dandekar obtained 154 marks and Petitioner secured/obtained 142 marks.

5/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt 7.

Likewise, for the category of candidates from scheduled Caste Women reservation category, on the basis of examination conducted on 20/6/2024, provisional combined list of qualified candidates was published. In the said list, Respondent No.6, who had applied from Scheduled Caste Women reservation category, secured 136 marks, and accordingly, her name was reflected in the list of qualified candidate. 8.

The Petitioner, after declaration of the provisional combined list, neither objected nor raised any grievance that her candidature was not considered from Scheduled Caste women reservation category. As such, the selection committee proceeded further and on 19/8/2024 published the final selection list of the candidates for the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) for 16 posts. As per the said selection list, two persons namely, Milind Ramchandra Bhise and Sachin Namdeo Dandekar were shown to be selected from Scheduled Caste general category and Respondent No.6 Vijaya Sukhdeo Khade was shown to be selected under horizontal reservation i.e. women reservation. 9.

After declaration of the final selection list, Petitioner approached to this Court by making a grievance that on 25/8/2023 while applying the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) from Scheduled Caste category, inadvertently she

6/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt has not opted 'Yes' to the question, 'Are you applying under women reservation?' Hence, considering the fact that Respondent No.6, obtained less marks than the Petitioner, she should be declared as selected from the women reservation category. Petitioner stated that she secured 142 marks, whereas Respondent No.6 secured 136 marks. Hence, considering the merit of the Petitioner, selection of the Respondent No.6 be cancelled and Petitioner's claim for the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) be directed to be considered by the Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

10.

In response to the notices issued to the Respondents, they appeared in the matter and categorically stated that under clauses - 3.13 and 3.18 of the instructions manual, it was made clear to every candidate applying for the post that the candidate should diligently go through the application form and rightly opt for the relevant category and failure to do so will deprive them from considering their candidature. However, in spite of these specific directions, Petitioner failed to apply from the specific category, and therefore, now she cannot raise grievance for her non-selection. It is further pointed out that if there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of Petitioner while applying for the post, she could have raised her grievance immediately after submitting her application, but it is clear from the record that till final

7/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt selection of the candidate, she has never raised her grievance before any of the authority. Hence, considering the conduct of the Petitioner, it is clear that she is only trying to take a chance only because Respondent No.6 secured less marks than the Petitioner. Hence, considering the overall factual position, the Petitioner did not approach with clean hands, and therefore, Petition deserves to be dismissed.

11.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides, perused the record as well as the Judgments relied upon by the parties.

12.

It is undisputed fact that while issuing advertisement, the instructions given to the candidates are very specific, particularly clauses - 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.13 of instructions manual. Hence, failure on the part of Petitioner to apply specifically from the women reservation i.e. horizontal reservation, cannot give right to the Petitioner to get appointment from the category from which she never applied. Hence, according to us, prima facie we do not find any merit in the submission of the Petitioner. 13.

Bare perusal of the application form of the Petitioner clearly demonstrate the fact that she has categorically denied the option, 'Are you

8/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt applying under women reservation?' by stating 'No' in her application form now subsequently she cannot make grievance for not considering her candidature from the said category. Granting of benefit would amount to permit petitioner to change her category after recruitment exercise is over. Hence, we do not find merit in the submission of the Petitioner. 14.

It is pertinent to note that in the present Petition, the recruitment application was submitted by the Petitioner on 25/8/2023, thereafter examination was conducted on 20/6/2024 and then selection list was declared on 19/8/2024 and the provisional list of the candidates qualified for the post on the basis of marks obtained by them in the examination was published on 26/7/2024. During this period, Petitioner never raised her grievance to either of the Authorities stating that there was any mistake on her part while applying for the post. Hence, it can be concluded that Petitioner was aware that as she has not applied from Scheduled Caste Women reservation category, she has no right over the post, and therefore, she has not raised any objection during recruitment exercise.

15.

That from the record what it is revealed that the Petitioner has secured 142 marks, whereas the Respondent No.6, who had applied from Scheduled Caste Women reservation category has secured 136 marks. As such,

9/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt it seems that Petitioner realised that as Respondent No.6 secured less marks than her, she can claim her appointment from Scheduled Caste Women reservation category. Therefore, first time before this Court she raised a grievance by stating that by inadvertent mistake she failed to opt from women reservation category and, therefore, this Court should consider her candidature from Scheduled Caste Women reservation category. We find no merit in the submission of petitioner, because after conclusion of recruitment exercise, no candidate can be permitted to change the category of her/his application. Therefore, guidelines framed while applying the post required to be adhered by candidate scrupulously.

16.

The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent has rightly relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. V/s Gayabai Gorakh Pokale & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 10085 of 2016, dated 26/4/2018, wherein in paragraph No.23 this Court has observed as under :

"23.

For the forgoing reasons when the applicant did not submit non-creamy layer certificate with the application form and did not claim benefit of 30% reservation available for women category mentioning the said fact in column Nos.11 and 12 of the application form, her request to give her benefit of 30% reservation for women

10/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt category, rejected by respondent Collector by letter dated 17.03.2017 cannot be said to be illegal."

17.

The learned Counsel for Respondents further relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A. P. Public Service Commission V/s Koneti Venkateswarulu and Others1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

"At no point of time did the first respondent inform the appellant Commission that there was a bona fide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that there was inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the appellant Commission discovered by itself that there was suppressio veri and suggestio falsi on the part of the first respondent in the application that the respondent came forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence. The explanation in such circumstances is unacceptable and does not deserve any public employment."

18.

It is further relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. V/s G. Hemalathaa & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019, wherein in paragraph No.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

"7.

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 177

11/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the instructions issued by the Commission."

19.

That from the abovesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is necessary for the candidate to adhere to the terms and conditions of the instructions in the advertisement and same is of paramount importance. The Petitioner cannot claim benefit after completion of the recruitment exercise by stating that he/she inadvertently not opted from particular category.

20.

In the present Petition, it is admitted fact that Petitioner did not opt from the Scheduled Caste Women reservation category. Furthermore, from the date of submitting her application dated 25/8/2023 till the date of selection of candidate i.e. 19/8/2024, Petitioner no where raised her grievance stating that there was inadvertent mistake on her part. Hence, considering the entire factual aspect, we are of the opinion that Petitioner, after completion of the recruitment exercise, cannot be allowed to change her category and take benefit of her caste or her gender in the recruitment exercise. Accordingly, we find no merit in the submission of the Petitioner and the Petition is dismissed.

12/12 Judg.wp.5224.2024.odt 21.

Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.] Lateron :

22.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim order is in operation in the matter dated 3rd September, 2024 till today may be extended for a period of six weeks to approach to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the same is strongly opposed by the respondents. 23.

Considering our findings recorded in the matter and recruitment exercise is already stalled, the period of four weeks is granted to approach to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.] vijaya Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/08/2025 18:57:19