Bombay High Court
Swapnil Vijay Jadhav And Anr vs The Settlement Commisssioner And ... on 9 January, 2023
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, Sandeep V. Marne
6-WPST.31643.2022
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 31643 OF 2022
Swapnil Vijay Jadhav and Anr. } Petitioners
versus
The Settlement Commissioner }
and Director of Land Record }
and Anr. } Respondents
Mr. Sunil S. Gosavi for the petitioners.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.&
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioners had filled in applications for the post of Surveyor-cum-Clerk pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents.
2. The advertisement was issued on 9th December 2021. On 10th December 2021, a corrigendum was issued by the respondents that even the degree holders in Engineering would be permitted to apply for the post of Surveyor-cum- Clerk. The petitioner filed an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) challenging the corrigendum permitting the degree holders to apply for the post of Surveyor-cum-Clerk. The Tribunal did not accede to the contention of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition.
16-WPST.31643.2022
3. The learned advocate for the petitioners strenuously contends that under the rules, the qualification prescribed is Diploma in Civil Engineering or 2 years' certificate course of Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in the Surveyor Trade, which includes the candidates having completed one or two years' course of Surveyor.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the corrigendum is against the rules and the original advertisement. The same was not permitted. The petitioners had, on 21st December 2021, made representation to the authorities in that regard. However, the said representations made by the petitioners and others from time to time were never considered by the respondents and a notification was issued in November 2022. The petitioners got the knowledge that their applications are not considered.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered that under the rules or under the original advertisement, degree holders are not allowed to apply for the post of Surveyor-cum-Clerk. Any qualification mentioned against the rules or the original advertisement would be ineffective and illegal. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal while negating the case of the petitioners. According to the learned advocate, it is only because the decision was not taken upon the representations of the petitioners, the petitioners did not approach the Tribunal earlier.
6. The learned AGP submits that the petitioners had filed the original application only on 18th November 2022. The corrigendum to the advertisement, thereby allowing the degree holders to participate, was published on 10th 2 6-WPST.31643.2022 December 2021. The selection process is undertaken. The main examination is conducted from 28th November 2022 to 30th November 2022. The examination was conducted in 51 centers all over the State of Maharashtra.
7. The advertisement was published on 9th December 2021. Thereafter, a corrigendum was published on 10th December 2021 to the effect that degree holders would also be permitted to apply for the post of Surveyor-cum-Clerk. The petitioners had filed representation on 21st December 2021. The petitioners had filled in applications, pursuant to the advertisement, on 18th December 2021. The petitioners did not approach the Tribunal or this Court till 18 th November 2022. The petitioners participated in the selection process. The original application was filed only on 18 th November 2022. In the original application also, the petitioners did not add some of the degree holders as party even in the representative capacity. Any order passed against the degree holders would be behind their back.
8. In fact, in the representation given by the petitioners, the petitioners suggested that even diploma holders should not be allowed to participate in the selection process though in the original application, the application was restricted to the extent of degree holders.
9. Be that as it may, for two reasons, this Court, at this stage, cannot consider the prayer of the petitioners: (i) the petitioners had participated in the selection process and the corrigendum was not challenged almost for one year, the original application being filed on 18th November 2022; and
(ii) the persons (degree holders), who would be affected by any orders passed, were not made parties in the original 3 6-WPST.31643.2022 application nor in the writ petition. No orders can be passed behind the back of the persons whose claim would be affected.
10. In the light of the above, the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned order.
11. The writ petition is dismissed of. No costs.
SALUNKE JV Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.10 (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 19:02:39 +0530 4