Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D Kulkarni, JJ.
Angad Dnyanoba Shitale - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11843 of 2017; Civil Application No. 5428 of 2020
Decided On : 04-05-2021
Technician-III - Appointment Consideration from Waiting List - Clause 8 of Advertisement - [Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others V/s South East Central Railway and others, 2019 12 SCC 798, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association V/s State of Gujarat and Others,1994 Supp2 SCC 591, State of J & K & Ors. V/s Sat Pal,2013 DGLS(SC) 96, Surinder Singh and Other V/s State of Punjab and Another, 1997 8 SCC 488, A.P. Aggarwal V/s Government of National Capitay Territory of Delhi and another, 2000 AIR(SC) 205, Jai Narain Ram V/s State of U.P. and others, 1996 1 SCC 332, R. S. Mittal V/s Union of India, 1995 Supp2 SCC 230, Virender S. Hooda and others V/s State of Haryana and another, 1999 AIR(SC) 1701, Madan Lal and others V/s State of J. & K. and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 1088, Decision of Division Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 12845 of 2018 (Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Jeevan Nivruttirao Wader etc.) decided on 15/02/2019, Decision of Division Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 6368 of 2019 (Dnyaneshwar s/o Abhimanyu Wakade and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 30/04/2020] - The court considered the petitioners' claim for appointment to the post of Technician-III from the waiting list, emphasizing the obligation of the respondent authorities to consider the waiting list candidates when vacancies remain unfilled from the select list. The court referred to various legal provisions and precedents to support the petitioners' claim, ultimately directing the respondent to consider the candidature of petitioners for the appointment on the post of 33 Technicians from the waiting list, subject to their seniority and as per reservation policy if they are otherwise found eligible for the said post.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who appeared for the examination for the post of Technician-III, were placed on the waiting list after 215 posts remained vacant from the select list. They sought directions to the respondent authorities to consider their claim for appointment to the post of Technician-III.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to consider the candidature of petitioners for the appointment on the post of 33 Technicians from the waiting list, subject to their seniority and as per reservation policy if they are otherwise found eligible for the said post.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, placed on the waiting list for the post of Technician-III, had a right to be appointed when vacancies remained unfilled from the select list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent authorities were obligated to consider the waiting list candidates for appointment when vacancies remained unfilled from the select list, as per the advertisement clause and legal precedents.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to consider the candidature of petitioners for the appointment on the post of 33 Technicians from the waiting list, subject to their seniority and as per reservation policy if they are otherwise found eligible for the said post.
JUDGMENT
Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
. Factual matrix.
2. The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., (for bravity 'MSPGC Ltd.,') / Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of direct recruit had advertised 947 posts of Technician-III. Out of 947 posts, 473 posts were reserved for general (Non Pragat Kushal) and remaining 474 posts were reserved for special category meant for project affected candidates (Pragat Kushal). The petitioners are possessing the requisite qualification of diploma in Industrial Training Institute (ITI) and as such they are qualified for the said post of Technician-III. The petitioners had applied for the said post of Technician-III in view of the advertisement published by MSPGC Ltd., In the advertisement, it was specifically stated that the selected candidates may be accommodated in any power station run by Power Generation Company.
3. On 07/05/2016 and on 08/05/2016 the respective petitioners had appeared for the examination. On 10/06/2016 the result of final examination was declared by MSPGC Ltd. They declared select list and waiting list and published notification dated 01/10/2016. It was specifically mentioned in clause 8 of the notification that if the candidates from select list are found disqualified during course of document verification process, the candidates from the waiting list would be considered. The names of petitioners find place in the waiting list. 947 candidates were on the select list. At the time of document verification process out of 947 selected candidates, 166 candidates were found ineligible and thus disqualified. Some of the candidates from select list had refused to join the post. As such there are 215 posts which fell short to complete the recruitment of 947 posts. The MSPGC Ltd has declared that the select list and wait list would remain in force for one year from the date of its publication meaning thereby the list would be in force till 01/10/2017.
4. According to the petitioners though 215 posts were not filled in from select list, the respondents are not responding to consider the candidates from the waiting list wherein the names of petitioners are appearing. The petitioners had submitted their representations on 20/07/2017 and 03/09/2017 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 authorities and requested to issue appointment orders. The representations submitted by the petitioners are not considered by the respondent authorities. In the above background the petitioners are before us. They are seeking directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider their claim for the appointment to the post of Technician-III since their names appear in the waiting list when there are more than 200 vacancies with MSPGC Ltd.
5. We have heard Mr. Anandsing Bayas, learned Advocate for petitioners, Mr. A. R. Kale, learned AGP for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at length. We have also gone through the advertisement published by MSPGC Ltd. We have also perused select list and waiting list prepared by MSPGC Ltd., for the post of Technician-III for general (Non Pragat Kushal) and special category meant for project affected candidates (Pragat Kushal). Also perused the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and rejoinder filed on behalf of petitioners and documents and papers relied by both the sides.
Submissions of learned Advocate for the petitioners.
6. Mr. Bayas, learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the names of petitioners appeared in the wait list. Some of the petitioners are from open category, some from scheduled caste category, some from OBC category and one from NTC. He submitted that in document verification process 166 candidates were found ineligible and they were disqualified. Some of the candidates from select list had refused to join the post of Technician-III. As such ther
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
