SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 1258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
Shantabai Laxman Doiphode – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Industries & Labour Department & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6326 of 2018
Decided On : 14-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mohan Sudame, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, Neeraj Patil, Addl. G.P., R4, A. R. Patil, Learned Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that candidates can legitimately stake their claim in the open category based on merit, and horizontal reservations should be filled within the respective social reservation categories.

Headnote:

Reservation - Appointment - G.R. dated 25.05.2001 - The judgment discussed the settled law on horizontal and vertical reservations, and the interpretation of G.R. dated 25.05.2001. It highlighted that open category seats should be filled based on merit, and horizontal reservations should be filled within the respective social reservation categories. The court found that the petitioner, despite applying for N.T.(D) category, could legitimately stake her claim in the open (women) category. The court also balanced the interests of the petitioner and respondent No.4 by directing the appointment of both to the respective categories.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Binder in the N.T.(D) category but sought appointment in the open (women) category. The respondent No.2 filled one open (women) category post with a female candidate from the S.C. category and the second post with a male candidate, leading to the petitioner's challenge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner could legitimately stake her claim in the open (women) category despite applying for N.T.(D) category. It balanced the interests of the petitioner and respondent No.4 by directing the appointment of both to the respective categories.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could claim appointment in the open (women) category despite applying for N.T.(D) category, and whether the respondent No.4's appointment was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the interpretation of G.R. dated 25.05.2001, emphasizing that open category seats should be filled based on merit, and horizontal reservations should be filled within the respective social reservation categories. It found that the petitioner could legitimately stake her claim in the open (women) category and balanced the interests of the petitioner and respondent No.4 by directing the appointment of both to the respective categories.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned judgment and directed the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's claim for the post of Assistant Binder against open (women) category and issue an appointment order. It also directed the issuance of a fresh appointment order to respondent No.4 in the category of ex-servicemen.

JUDGMENT :-

(Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. In the year 2015, various posts were available on the establishment of the respondent No.2 at different locations such as Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Wai and Kolhapur and, therefore, recruitment drive came to be initiated. An advertisement was published inviting applications online from eligible candidates for being considered for their appointments to the posts advertised. The petitioner was interested in the post of Assistant Binder. There were in all 10 posts of Assistant Binder available at Nagpur Government Press, out of which 03 posts were for open category, 02 posts for women, 01 post for ex-servicemen and 01 post for each of the four categories of social reservations such as S.C., S.T., N.T.(D), N.T.(B) and S.B.C.

4. The petitioner, who belongs to the social reservation category of N.T.(D), filled in her application seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Binder. In the application, petitioner mentioned her reservation category as N.T.(D). She also mentioned in her application that she was not interested in open category posts, the reason for which the petitioner now states is that, the petitioner was not very-much hopeful of her getting selected in the open category in view of the high standards which usually govern the selection of candidates in open category. But, the petitioner submits that in view of the settled law that all social reservation candidates like those belonging to the categories such as S.C., S.T., N.T., D.T. etc. can claim their selection not only against the reserved categories to which they belong, but also in the open category.

5. There was a written test conducted at Government Printing Press, Civil Lines, Nagpur 03.03.2017 and the petitioner found her name amongst the 17 candidates, who were short listed for selection. The petitioner had secured 51 marks out of 100. The petitioner was one amongst three female candidates who were short listed. One short listed female candidate, Smt. Priya Naresh Gajbhiye, had secured 68 marks from out of 100, while the third short listed female candidate, Smt. Sushmita Rajendrasingh Purke, had secured 47 marks from out of 100.

6. According to the petitioner, Smt. Priya Naresh Gajbhiye, though belonged to S.C. category, was selected in open category (women) considering her merit. The petitioner submits that the third short listed candidate, Smt. Sushmita Rajendrasingh Purke, having secured lowest marks among the three female candidates, was out of consideration for being selected in the open female category. But, in case of the petitioner, it is submitted, the claim for being selected for her appointment in the open female category, she being the second highest scorer after Smt. Priya Naresh Gajbhiye, was unimpeachable. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, from out of two posts available in the open female category, only one post was filled up by selecting Smt. Priya Naresh Gajbhiye and the second post in the same category was filled up by selecting respondent No.4, a male candidate.

7. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 by filing Original Application No.241 of 2017 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had applied only in the category N.T.(D) and had selected an option indicating that she was not interested in the posts available for open female category candidates. In such a case, according to the Tribunal, the procedure prescribed in G. R. dated 25.05.2001 came into play. The Tribunal noted that in Clause – 7 of the said G.R., the procedure prescribed was that if no female candidates were available for being selected against the women category reserved in particular categories of reservations, the unfilled posts meant for women candidates in the respective social reservations be filled up from amongst th

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top