MR. SACHIN VISHWAS KAMBLE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT ...
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-99
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 22,2017

Mr. Sachin Vishwas Kamble Appellant
VERSUS
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BHARATI, H.DANGRE, J. - (1.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that in a selection process conducted by respondent No.2 for filling up the post on the establishment of respondent no.1, the name of the petitioner was placed in the merit list prepared for the post of Assistant Painter, but no appointment order was issued in his favour and on the other hand respondent no. 3 and 4 came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Painter in the category to which the petitioner belonged namely the Scheduled Caste Category.
(2.) The undisputed facts giving rise to the petition can be simply stated as below:- Respondent No.1 is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC for short) which initiated a process for filling up the post of Assistant Painter through an advertisement issued for filling up various technical posts like motor mechanic, wireman, electrician, Painter etc. In the present petition, we are concerned with the post of Assistant painter. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Caste and he submitted his on line application in pursuance of an advertisement since he possessed the requisite educational qualification for the said post. With regard to the details of the educational qualification, since it is not in dispute that the petitioner was educationally qualified for being considered for appointment to the said post for which he applied. Respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.2 Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd (MKCL for short) to conduct the entire procedure of selection of candidates on the posts advertised for its establishment. The petitioner was called for written examination and the result-sheet reflected that the petitioner had secured 60 out of 100 marks and the petitioner has placed on record the extract of the result sheet which was displayed on the website of respondent No.2-Corporation declaring him to have passed and securing 60 marks as against the post of Assistant Junior Painter. According to the petitioner, there was no other Scheduled Caste Candidate who has applied for the said post of Assistant Junior Painter and the petitioner has placed on record a collective merit list prepared by respondent No.2 to make such an assertion. It is the case of the petitioner that he was also called for verification of documents and his documents were verified. The petitioner's contention is that he kept waiting for an order of appointment but he was shocked and surprised when he came to know that respondent no.3 and 4 were declared selected and when he collected the information it was revealed by him that respondent No.3 had secured 53 marks and respondent No.4 had secured 45 marks, which are undisputedly lesser than the marks scored by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred representations to respondent No. 1 and 2 agitating his grievance and causing them to rectify the error committed by them in selecting respondent No. 3 and 4, which were according to the petitioner was not attended and this constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner makes representation that there is serious lacuna in the selection process conducted by respondent No. 1 and 2. He contends that when he was already selected and passed the examination and stood first in the list of Scheduled Caste, respondent No. 1 and 2 ought not to have selected respondent No. 3 and 4 and there is no justification coming from respondent No. 1 and 2 as to why the petitioner has been deprived of his right of selection in-spite of his better performance in the written examination as against respondent No. 3 and 4 in the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner has therefore prayed for quashing and setting aside the appointment order of respondent No. 3 and 4 and has prayed for direction to respondent no. 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner on merit and appoint him on the post of Asstt. Painter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.