The possession of preferential qualifications does not guarantee an absolute right of selection, and the selection committee has the discretion to weigh the preferential criteria in the context of other qualifications and suitability of the candidate.

JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

In view of the notice issued by this Court on 1072019, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner, an aspiring candidate has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Peon on Gram Panchayat, Jankapur, being arbitrary. The petitioner seeks to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 and further seeks for direction to the Gram Panchayat to appoint him on the post of Peon.

3. Respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat has floated a public advertisement dated 15-9-2016, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Peon. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, had applied for the said post along with several other candidates. The eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Peon was that – the candidate shall be local resident; he should have passed H.S.C. examination; his age should not be less than 18 years and not above 28 years; and he should possess requisite knowledge of Marathi language. Besides, that candidate possessing knowledge of computer and electrician, would get preference.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the only candidate possessing requisite qualification along with knowledge of computer and electrician. Since he possess both preferential criteria in terms of the advertisement, he is entitled for selection to the post of Peon. The petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 Shri Gaidhane does not possess preferential criteria of computer knowledge, therefore, his appointment is arbitrary and bad in law.

5. On the basis of said advertisement dated 15-9-2016, initially the Gram Panchayat had selected one Pravin Masram for the post of peon. The said appointment was challenged by this very petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7045/2017. Similar challenge was raised by the petitioner that he is possessing preferential qualification which Shri Masram does not possess. In said Writ Petition, this Court has held that the Gram Panchayat was not entitled to change the Rules after advertisement. Therefore, by setting aside the appointment of Shri Masram respondent No. 3 therein, directed Gram Panchayat to consider the case of petitioner along with other eligible candidates who may be entitled to seek preference on the basis of advertisement. In such a background, the Gram Panchayat has considered the applications afresh, which they have already received and accordingly appointed present respondent No. 3 vide resolution dated 1562018, which is impugned herein.

6. Respondent Gram Panchayat resisted the petition vide reply-affidavit dated 13-2-2020. It is contended that respondent No. 3 has filed provisional certificate of computer knowledge i.e. MSCIT, which he completed in the month of November, 2016. Moreover, a comparative chart of additional and preferential qualification is given to substantiate the stand that respondent No. 3 was found to be a better candidate, hence, came to be selected.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the issue involved. Undisputedly Gram Panchayat has issued a public advertisement on 15-9-2016 for filling the post of Peon. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 possess basic qualification and both were considered by Gram Panchayat at the time of selection. It is petitioner’s grievance that, though respondent No. 3 was not qualified as per the advertisement, still he was selected. According to the petitioner, he possesses preferential criteria of having knowledge of computer and electrician, which respondent No. 3 does not possess. The petitioner would contend that he being the only candidate possessing both preferential qualifications, he is entitled for appointment on the post of Peon.

8. Precisely, the petitioner is claiming a right of appointment on the basis of additi