SAU. MANISHA SHRIKRISHNA SOLANKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,MANTRALAYA,MUMBAI
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Sau. Manisha Shrikrishna Solanke
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home,Mantralaya,Mumbai
Click here to view full judgement.
VASANTI A.NAIK,J. -
(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 28.11.2014 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner and the respondent no.4 applied for appointment to the post of Police Patil of village Waghoda as per the proclamation issued by the respondent no.3 on 17.1.2009. As per the norms for selection four marks could be allotted to a candidate holding a graduate degree and three additional marks for the candidate holding a post graduate degree. The petitioner was admittedly not a graduate at the time of the selection but wrongly four marks were allotted to the petitioner and she was appointed to the post of Police Patil of village Waghoda. Some complaints were received by the respondent nos.2 and 3 in respect of the wrongful appointment of the petitioner and on an enquiry, the respondent no.3 issued a notice to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled as she was wrongfully awarded four marks though she did not possess a degree. After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the respondent no.4 was appointed to the post of Police Patil. Cancellation of her appointment and the appointment of the respondent no.4 was challenged by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.
Ms Sapkal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that though the petitioner was wrongfully awarded four additional marks for a degree which she did not posses, the respondent no.4 was also wrongfully awarded two marks for the B.P.Ed. degree though the B.P.Ed. degree is not a post graduate degree. It is submitted that the petitioner has received 17 marks after the deduction of four marks and if the marks of the respondent no.4 are reduced the petitioner would be entitled to be appointed.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Tribunal has rightly considered the Government Resolution placed by the parties on record to hold that the claim of the petitioner was not justified. It is submitted that even if the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and two marks are used from the marks secured by the respondent no.4 still the respondent no.4 would secure 17 marks that would be equal to the marks secured by the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no.4 was appointed nearly seven years earlier and in the circumstances of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
We find much force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents. Even if we assume that the respondent no.4 was not entitled to two marks for possessing a B.P.Ed. degree, still the marks secured by the respondent no.4 would be 17 marks. Considering the fact that the respondent no.4 was appointed nearly seven years back, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the appointment order of the respondent no.4, specially when the respondent no.4 is working as a Police Patil for long and there appears to be no grievance against her. While so observing, we are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment order of the respondent no.4 should be set aside as the petitioner has secured more marks than the respondent no.4 under the head "suitability of the candidate". Much weightage cannot be given to this aspect of the matter, specially when the respondent no.4 is working on the post of Police Patil for nearly seven years.
In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.