2008 Supreme(Bom) 475
2008(5) ALL MR 376
TO THE HTGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
N.V. DABHOLKAR & S. B. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Sunil s/o. Eknath Patil @ Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No.7472 of 2007
Decided On: 31st March, 2008.
Shri. R. R. MANTRT, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri. K.B. CHOUDHART. A.G.P. for Respondents.
PAPs are entitled to appointments in the 'priority quota' without competing with open market candidates or among themselves, and appointments should be made in order of seniority.
Headnote:
PRIORITY QUOTA - GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES - ACT XI OF 2001 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a project affected person (PAP), challenged the requirement for PAPs to compete with other candidates and the method of recruitment for PAPs. The petitioner argued that PAPs should be appointed from a wait list based on seniority without competition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that PAPs are entitled to appointments in the 5% 'priority quota' without competing with open market candidates or among themselves. The court held that the appointments should be made in order of seniority and directed the government to fill vacancies for PAPs within 18 months without the need for competitive examinations.
Issues: Whether PAPs are required to compete with open market candidates and among themselves for appointments in the 'priority quota' and the method of recruitment for PAPs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that PAPs are not required to compete with open market candidates or among themselves for appointments in the 'priority quota'. The appointments should be made in order of seniority, and vacancies for PAPs should be filled without the need for competitive examinations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the recruitment related to PAPs, and directed the government to fill vacancies for PAPs within 18 months without the need for competitive examinations.
"(A) Quash and set aside the requirement of submitting an application and competing with other candidates as provided in the advertisement dated 17-8-2007, issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for filling up the posts of Clerk-cum-Typist and Talathi, for project affected persons.
(B)Directions to respondents to fill in quota of not less than 5% of the posts of Clerkcum-Typist and Talathi from project affected persons category, on the basis of seniority as mentioned in the register maintained by respondent No.2 and in case the posts are not available, to convert the posts reserved for ex-servicemen and sportsmen category, for which candidates are not available.
(C)Prohibiting the respondents and other authonties referred in Section 1O-6(a) and (b) of Mahar ash Ira Project Affected Persons rehabilitation Act, 1999 (Act XI of 2001 for short) from filling in at least 5% posts in 'C and 0' category mentioned in the said sub-clauses, except from the category of project affected persons."
2. Petitioner is B.A. with Economics. He has passed Marathi Typing for 30 w.p.m., and English Typing for 40 w.p.m. He has also acquired Computer education and M.S. C.I.T. Certificate. He belongs to O.B.C. category. Agricultural land of petitioner's family was acquired for the purpose of Hatnoor Dam and as such, petitioner is a PAP. Petitioner was required to struggle considerably in order to have his certificate of PAP and registration in accordance with seniority. First application for PAP certificate was moved by petitioner on 8-8-1994, which was rejected by respondent No.2. In February, 1996 petitioner moved respondent No.1 State in its Department of Revenue and Forest, and he was asked to approach the Collector. In July, 1996, Collector again rejected his prayer for PAP certificate. When petitioner approached Mantralaya on the second occasion, report was called from the Collector and after considering the same, only on 12-12-1996 petitioner was issued a certificate. The misery of petitioner did not end there. In the register maintained for PAP, for appointment against 5% quota, petitioner's name was registered at Sr.No.1900. Collector refused to give proper seniority to the petitioner and ultimately upon approaching respondent No.1 State, Collector was directed to treat the application of the petitioner to be dated 16-8-1994 and place him in the seniority list at an appropriate location on the basis of the same.
According to petitioner, Government has issued directions under Act XI of 2001 from time to time and directed that 5% of Class III and IV seats in the Government or Corporations to be filled in directly from PAP, in accordance with the seniority list maintained by the Collector. In spite of this, petitioner 18 denied an appointment nearly for 13 years.
According to petitioner. Government, in the Department of General Administration, by resolution dated 21-1-1980, prescribed for the procedure requiring to keep quota of 59(, in its employment for PAP. On 21-1-1993, further circular was issued declaring Government policy that provision of Government employment to PAP was paramount consideration for its resettlement policy. Consequently, such appointments were taken out from the jurisdiction of Secondary Services Selection Boards to enable the appointments of PAP directly. In order to enable the Government to give them higher priority, Collectors were directed to prepare a list of PAP and to forward the names to Departments concerned for appointments. By another resolution dated 30-9-1993, it was pointed out that as a matter of policy of the Government. 5% employment in Class 'C' and 'd' category was to be provided to PAP, not only in the services of the State but also in the services of vario