Bombay High Court
Dhirajkumar S/O Rajendraprasad Lal vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 5 March, 2020
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
Judgment wp7140.18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 7140/2018.
Dhirajkumar s/o Rajendraprasad Lal,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation
Business, resident of WCL Umred Project,
Nagpur Unred Road, Near WCL Bus Stop,
WCL Waygaon (Ghoturli), Umred
(Rural), Nagpur 441204. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Main
Building, Madam Cama Road,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Directorate of
Information Technology,
Information Technology Department,
Main Building, Madam Cama Road,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
3. The Collector, Nagpur,
Collector Office Premises,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.
4. The Resident Deputy Collector, Nagpur,
Collector Office Premises,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 18:38:48 :::
Judgment wp7140.18
2
5. The Senior Support Engineer,
Collector Office Premises,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.
6. CSE e-Governance Services India Limited,
(A Special Purpose Vehicle under
Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology), and also termed as
CSC-SPV, through the District Manager,
Nagpur, Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi 110003.
7. Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MeitY)
Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi 110003.
8. Manoj s/o Kisan Jodhe,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation -
Business, resident of Shree Computers,
Jagnade Complex, Bhisi Naka Square,
Jogithanapeth, Tahsil Umred,
District Nagpur 441203. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. E.S. Shastrabuddhe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.Ukey, Addl,G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. C.J. Dhumane, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
None for respondent nos. 6 and 8
----------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 18:38:48 :::
Judgment wp7140.18
3
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR
& VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 05, 2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The Government of India has floated a project of CSE i.e. Common Service Centre for providing essential services to the public, which is a social welfare scheme. In pursuance of the said Scheme, applications were invited for allotment of 220 service centres in Nagpur District. The petitioner applied for allotment of service centre for village Waygaon, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur. However, the petitioner was not selected, but, authorities have selected respondent no.8 for allotment of centre, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
3. Undisputedly, petitioner as well as respondent no.8 both ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 18:38:48 ::: Judgment wp7140.18 4 have applied for allotment of service centre at concerned place. The petitioner claims that he is the only eligible candidate from the area, having fulfilled the criteria. The respondents have rejected the candidature of petitioner on the count that he was not having CSC Code, as well as he has not furnished correct information. To counter this submission, the petitioner would submit that experience of having CSC code was not the essential qualifying criteria, therefore, his candidature cannot be rejected on said count.
4. We have gone through the Government Resolution dated 19.01.2018, which provides for the requisite criteria and the manner in which the selection process has to be implemented. It is apparent that the candidates having CSC Code can apply for the centre, but, it is not an essential criteria. However, the Government Resolution itself postulates that the candidates who are having CSC Code will be preferred. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not having CSC code, whilst the selected candidate bears the CSC Code.
5. The another ground for disqualification of the petitioner is that he has furnished incorrect information while filling up the application form. Copy of the application form discloses that besides ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 18:38:48 ::: Judgment wp7140.18 5 other qualification, petitioner has shown that he has completed graduation. The respondent has made a categorical statement that the petitioner has not furnished documents to show that he has acquired graduation.
6. The learned Addl.G.P. has pointed out the condition that, in case the information is incorrect, the candidature will be rejected. Though, the petitioner submitted that he has supplied the requisite documents of graduation, however, it is a factual aspect, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The fact remains that while making assessment, the petitioner was not considered as undergraduate and accordingly, weightage was not given to him. Respondent has produced a chart of assessment of all candidates based on different parameters, including educational qualification and technical knowledge. The petitioner acquired score of 3 marks, whilst the selected candidate acquired more score of 5 marks.
7. The last submission is about the residential area. According to the petitioner he is the only candidate residing in village Waygaon, whilst the selected candidate is residing 4 kms, ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 18:38:48 ::: Judgment wp7140.18 6 away from the said place. On qualifying criteria, the petitioner was found ineligible, hence, the authorities have selected the more qualified candidate who is from the same periphery. On examination of all these facts, we find that the selection process was rationale and there was no arbitrariness in selecting respondent no.8. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to impose our view on the authorities, who have properly carried out the process. Hence, Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed, and we dismiss the same accordingly. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 18:38:48 :::