Bombay High Court
Sangram Ramdas Gholve And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 18 July, 2016
Author: S.S. Shinde
Bench: S.S. Shinde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2908 OF 2016
1. Sangram s/o Ramdas Gholve,
age : 25 years, Occ.: Nil.
R/o Gangpati Nagar, Behind Saraswati,
School, Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed
2. Neeraj S/o Arjun Gangurde,
age : 24 years, Occ.: Nil.
R/o 50, Indraneel Ram Nagar,
Dahivel Tq. Sakri Dist.Dhule
3. Ajinkya s/o Shyam Wankhade,
age : 26 years, Occ.: Nil.
R/o Flat No. 103, Kamal Plaza,
Farande, Nagar Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
4. Mahesh S/o Gunwant Morale,
Age Major years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o Wadjai, Tq. Washi
Dist. Osmanabad .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM) Nagpur .. RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2776 OF 2016
1. Mahesh s/o Kalyan Khose,
age 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Girvali, Post Pimparkhed,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
2 wp2908-2016-group
Tal.Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Angad s/o Vinayak Morale,
age : 27 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Jamkhed Road,
Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3. Ashutosh s/o Adinath Pachpute,
age : 26 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Kashti,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
4.
Rajendra s/o Subhash Khamkar,
age 26 years,
Occ.: Student,
R/o Ghargaon,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Prashant s/o Madhukar Jagtap,
age : 25 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
6. Ajinkya s/o Machindra Bansode,
Age : 24 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Bhawaninagar,
Tal. Indapur,
Dist. Pune
7. Dnyandeo s/o Pandurang Raykar,
Age : 27 years,
Occu: Student,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
3 wp2908-2016-group
R/o. Hangewadi,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
8. Mahendra s/o Macchindra Pachpute,
age : 25 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar,
9. Vishal s/o Dnyandeo Raskar,
age : 25 years,
Occ.: Student,
R/o Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
10. Mahesh s/o Kakasaheb Yadav,
age : 25 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
11. Azhaurddin s/o Nabisab Hamnabad,
age : 28 years,
Occu.: Lecturer,
R/o. Daund,
Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune
12. Pranav s/o Vasantrao Saste,
Age : 23 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Kashti,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
4 wp2908-2016-group
13. Hrishikesh s/o Dipak Yadav,
age : 26 years,
Occu. Student,
R/o Kolhapur,
Tal. Dist. Kolhapur
14. Sonal s/o Sukhdev Besekar,
age : 27 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Tilaknagar,
Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur
15. Rajaram s/o Bhiva Shinde,
age : 28 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Ranjali,
Tal. Man,
Dist. Satara .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through
Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Secretary,
Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
3. The President,
State level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee,
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
5 wp2908-2016-group
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2781 OF 2016
1. Deepak Vasantrao Galande,
Age : 27 years,
Occ. Unemployed,
r/o MIDC,
Latur, Tq. Latur
District Latur
2. Shivanand Nagnath Salunke,
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o In front M.S. Bidve
Engineering College,
Pakhar Sangvi Barshi Road Latur,
Tq. Latur, District Latur
3.
Abhijit Arvindrao Bhosale
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o Sayhyadri Building Narayanagar,
Latur
4. Vaibhav Jivanrao Patil,
Age : 25 years, Occ.: Unemployed,
R/o At Walswangi Post Shirol,
Tq. Nilanga District Latur
5. Dattaji Balaji Patil,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o Shirsal Lamjana Tq. Latur,
Dist. Latur
6. Kiran Salojirao Baraskar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o Behind Tulshidas Mandir Bhoi Galli,
Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur
7. Niranjan Navnath Mhuske,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o. At Post Kava, Tal. Ausa,
Dist. Latur
8. Shreyash Vinayak Bagal,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o.: Main road, Shivaji Chowk,
Murud Bk. District Latur
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
6 wp2908-2016-group
9. Ganesh s/o Kiran Dixit
Age : 26 years Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o.: Shubhshri Nathnagar, Ausa,
Tal. Ausa District Latur,
10. Manohar Gabaru Pawar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o At post Odhare Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
11. Abhiman Annasaheb Sanap,
Age : 22 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o At post Tagadgaon, Tq. Shirur,
Dist. Beed,
12. Sudhir Dinkarrao Shinde,
Age :29 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o C/o. Sandeep Dattaray Kankhar,
Jaibhavaninagar, Aurangabad
Tq. Dist. Aurangabad
13. Amol Anna Bhople,
Age 24 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o. Ramkrupa Colony, Mahada,
In front of Pratapnagar Dargah Road,
Aurangabad.
Tq. District Aurangabad .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Conservation & Irrigation
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
2. The State-Level Direct
Employment Selection Committee/
jkT;Lrjh; ljGlsok fuoM lferh] ukxiwj,
Nagpur (MS),
through it's President .. RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2772 of 2016
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
7 wp2908-2016-group
1. Jayant s/o Bhaskar Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. A-1, Aryan Residency,
Shambhhoo Nagar, Aurangabad
2. Sumeet s/o Sanjay Ragade,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Vinay Colony, Plot No. 87,
CIDCO, N-2, Aurangabad.
3. Sachini s/o Ashok Pendharkar,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Plot No. 25, New Shantiniketan
Colony, Aurangabad
4. Rohitkumar s/o Bhausaheb Ghuge,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad
5. Bhgyashri D/o Bhimrao Kawale,
Age : 24 years, Occ.: Education,
R/o Jyotiba Nagar, Taroda (Bk.),
Near Raj Corner, Nanded,
Tal. and Dist. Nanded
6. Nitin s/o Sakharam Lahane,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, CIDCO,
N-7, Aurangabad
7. Tanmay s/o Shashikant Kulkarni,
Age 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o D-75, Vinay Colony, N-2,
CIDCO, Aurangabad
8. Kiran s/o Bhagawat Dhokle,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Osmanapura,
Aurangabad
9. Shirishkumar s/o Chintamanrao Jadhav,
Age 29 years, Occ.: Service,
r/o House No. 300, MHADA Colony,
N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
8 wp2908-2016-group
10. Sachin s/o Bansidhar Sangle,
Age 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Patoda, Tal. Patoda,
Dist. Beed
11. Amit s/o Sanjiv Mahajan,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Swami Narayan Nagar,
Savada, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
12. Sumit s/o Shivaji Surushe,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o CIDCO, N-4, Aurangabad
13. Parag s/o Bhanudas Mahajan,
Age : 27 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Nhavi,
Tal. Yawal, District Jalgaon
14. Ravikiran s/o Sahebrao Surwase,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Girwalkar Nagar, Barshi Road,
Latur, Tal. and Dist. Latur
15. Rupesh s/o Damu Fegade,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
r/o. Baherpura, Nhavi,
Tal. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon
16. Girish s/o Vitthalrao Khedkar,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Private Service,
R/o Nirmal Nagar, Satkar Colony,
Savedi, Ahmednagar,
Tal. And District Ahmednagar
17. Vikram s/o Ramkisan Khajekar,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Beed Bye pass, Near Renuka
Mata Temple, Gut No. 105,
Plot No. 71, Janjira Housing Society,
Satara Parisar, Aurangabad
18. Anand s/o Shahurao Ghorpade,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
9 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Shriram Nagar, Shivneri Colony,
Beed, Tal. and Dist. Beed
19. Prashik Siddharth Shende,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
r/o. Khushbu Housing Society,
Plot No. 11, Near Guru Ganesh Nagar,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
20. Nitin s/o Govardhan Kolekar,
Age : 23 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o C-7, 28, Sneha Nagar,
Station Road, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabaad
21. Vikram s/o Magan Chaudhary,
Age : 23 years, Occo.Nil,ig
R/o. T-12, Prayap Nagar,
Near Little Wood Nursary School,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad
22. Swati d/o Sahebrao Pagare,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Eknath Nagar, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad
23. Rohini D/o Ravindra Dahifale,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
r/o. Koradgaon, Tal. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar
24. Pushpa d/o Amarsingh Bamm,
Age : 23 years, Occu.:Nil,
r/o.:Plot No. 157,
Shrikrishna Nagar,
Ramtara Road, Shahanoorwadi,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
25. Radha d/o Nandkumar Tibhe,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
r/o N-9, L-62/3, Shivaji Nagar,
HUDCO, Aurangabad
26. Sachin s/o Sahebrao Gadhe,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
10 wp2908-2016-group
r/o.: Balegaon, Tal. Umari,
Dist. Nanded
27. Datta s/o Venkatrao Chorband,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Osmannagar, Tal.Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded
28. Vinayak s/o Babanrao Jatale,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
r/o Plot No. 15, Town Centre,
CIDCO, Near CIDCO Bus stop,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
29. Lakhanpal s/o Shridhar Kendre,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
r/o Plot No. 118, Laxmi Nagar,
Garkheda, Aurangabad
30. Deepak s/o Rajendra Darade,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Pagori Pimpalgaon,
Tal. Pathardei,
District Ahmednagar
31. Rucha d/o Shrikrishna Tandale,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2016
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
11 wp2908-2016-group
1. Nikhil s/o Bharat Garudkar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Mahakali Galli, Tal. Mukhed,
District Nanded
2. Pratik s/o Kevalkumar Sangolkar,
Age : 22 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Near ITI College, Shivaji Road,
Rampuri, Tal. and Dist. Chandrapur,
At present Near Government College,
Opp. Badi Masjid, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad
3. Deepa d/o Shivnath Rahane,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Flat No. E-9, Chinar Garden,
Padegaon, Aurangabad
4. Kailas s/o Bhimrao Dhait,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Changle Nagar, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, Dist.Jalna
5. Vishnu s/o Tukaram Taur,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Mauli Niwas, Tilak Mohalla,
Nutan Vasahat, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
6. Abhilash s/o Shantappa Patil,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Chandraratna Niwas,
Beside Samartha Vidyalaya,
Pachod Road, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, District Jalna.
7. Raju s/o Harichandra Rathod,
Age : 23 years,Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Khanphodi, Tal. Mantha,
District Jalna
8. Nitesh s/o Tukaram Jawadwad,
Ae : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o.: N-11, Subhashchandra Bose Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
12 wp2908-2016-group
Aurangabad
9. Pratik s/o Vijaykumar Mane,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
N-12, D-46/13, Swami Vivekanand
Nagar, T.V. Centre, Aurangabad
10. Akash s/o Vikas Sangale,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Dusarbid, Tal. Sindkhedraja,
District Buldhana, at present
C/o Parvez Shaikh, Sonu Tower,
Nutan Colony, Aurangabad
11. Vikrant s/o Vitthalsing Bahure,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Town Centre, CIDCO,
Aurangabad
12. Ajit s/o Balasaheb Kupekar,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Surdi-Sonesangavi,
Tal. Kaij, District Beed
13. Aboli d/o Anand Deshpande,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Flat No.2, Suman Residency,
Ulkanagari, Aurangabad
14. Amit s/o Vitthalrao Umrajkar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. N-4, CIDCO, NS-3,
Plot No.2, Aurangabad
15. Sandeep s/o Chokha Bansode,
Age : 34 years, Occu.: Pvt.Service,
R/o. Bhim Nagar, Panchakki,
Aurangabad
16. Sarovarprabhat Raghunath DandAge,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Plot No.58, Ulkanagari,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad
17. Akash s/o Balaji Yenge,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
13 wp2908-2016-group
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
18. Dattatraya s/o Pandurang Khade,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Khadewadi, Tal. and Dist. Beed.
19. Nishant s/o Prabhakar Pagare,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o G-22, Tirupati Supreme Enclave,
Near Raiwlay Station, Aurangabad
20. Vaishali d/o Sambhaji Bhuktar,
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Plot No. 25, Sangita Colony
Bhavsing Road, Aurangabad
21. Ragini d/o Narayan Anjan,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Shrinagar Colony, Near Gathal Press,
Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajobai, Dist. Beed
22. Pratapsinh s/o Anil Patil,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Swapnashil, Sinchan Nagar,
Karmala, Tal. Karmala,
District Solapur, at present
A-1, Aryan Residency, Subhash Nagar,
Aurangabad
23. Shashikant s/o Umakant Gudale,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Plot No. 65-4, Shamumarga,
Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur
24. Yogesh s/o Dnyandeo Sakhare,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Prashant Nagar, Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
25. Vishwajeet s/o Dattatraya Gulbhile,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
14 wp2908-2016-group
26. Ranjitkumar s/o Shrihari Bhutekar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Sai Nagar, Osmanabad,
Tal. and District Osmanabad.
27. Kiran s/o Suresh Kesapure,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Opp. Nita Printing Press,
Naik Galli, Nehru Road,
Kadrabad Jalna, Dist.Jalna
28. Kishor s/o Bhagwat Sawant,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Ukali, Tal.Mehkar,
District Buldhana, at present
E-52, Gadres House, N-4,
CIDCO, Aurangabad
29. Bhushan s/o Dhananjay Nilekar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Sarafa Line, Ward No.1,
Durga Chowk, Malegaon,
District Washim, at present
Vinay Colony, D-87, CIDCO,
N-2, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad
30. Anand s/o Shrikantrao Sawant,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Behind Vijay Kirana Store,
Main Road, Samata Nagar,
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad
31. Vicky s/o Vasant Ahire,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil
R/o Gorane, Tal. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
32. Pushpak s/o Anil Sarode,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Raizpur,
Tal. Yawal, District Jalgaon
33. Pankaj s/o Sopan Pawar,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Service,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
15 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Near Gajanan Mandir,
Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2016
1. Kapil S/o Prakash Hiwaralay,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 3, Pethenagar,
Bhausingpura Area, Aurangabad,
Tal. and District Aurangabad
2. Abhijeet S/o Dattatray Kale,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 25, Vishal Nagar,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad,
Tal. and District Aurangabad6
3. Balaji S/o Sanjay Yelikar,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 96, N-4, CIDCO,
Parijat Nagar, Aurangabad
4. Parmeshwar S/o Satish Pawar,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Bandhuprem Housing Society,
Saigain Naka, Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
5. Pradip S/o Dnyanoba Bedarkar,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o B-95/2, T.V. Centre, HUDCO,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
16 wp2908-2016-group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2911 OF 2016
Sachin S/o Deorao Georaikar,
Age : 36 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 28, Samta Nagar,
Near Kranti Chowk, Police Station,
Aurangabad,
Tal. and Dist. Aurangabad .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5473 OF 2016
1. Nitin S/o Sakharam Lahane,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, CIDCO,
N-7, Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
17 wp2908-2016-group
2. Sachin S/o Ashok Pendharkar,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 25,
New Shantiniketan Colony,
Aurangabad
3. Rohitkumar S/o Bhausaheb Ghuge,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Education,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad
4. Sumeet S/o Sanjay Ragde,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Education,
R/o Vinay Colony, Plot No.87,
CIDCO, N-2, Aurangabad
5. Jayant S/o Bhaskar Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o A-1, Aryan Residency,
Shambhoo Nagar, Aurangabad
6. Shirishkumar S/o Chintamanrao Jadhav,
Age : 29 years, Occ. Service,
R/o House No.300, MHADA Colony,
N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Regional Division,
Mumbai
3. The Superintending Engineer (PWD),
Circle, Mumbai
4. The Executive Engineer,
Ekatmikrut Ghatak (P.W.) Division,
2nd Floor, Bandhkam Bhavan,
25, Marzaban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
18 wp2908-2016-group
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5550 OF 2016
1. Vishnu S/o Tukaram Taur,
Age : 24 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Nutan Vasahat, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
2. Datta S/o Venkatrao Ghorband,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Osman Nagar, Tal. Kandhar,
District Nanded
3. Sachin S/o Sahebrao Gade,
Age : 26 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o Balegaon, Tal. Umari,
District Nanded
4. Kailas S/o Bhimrao Dait,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Changli Nagar, Tal. Ambad
District Jalna.
5. Vidyasagar S/o Shriram Kathar,
Age : 25 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Plot No. 114, F-Sector,
N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad
6. Nikhil S/o Bharat Garudkar,
Age 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Mahakali Galli, Tal. Mukhed,
District Nanded
7. Vishal S/o Dattatraya Kadam,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Kanheri, Tal. Washi,
District Osmanabad
8. Datta S/o Pandurang Khade,
Age : 25 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Khadewadi, Tal. Kaij,
District Beed
9. Vinayak S/o Babanrao Jatale,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
19 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Plot No. 15, Town Centre,
CIDCO, Aurangabad
10. Siddeshwar S/o Vaijnath Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 18, Kala Hanuman Mandir,
Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
11. Snehal D/o Bhujang Bagal,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Katri, Tal. Tuljapur,
District Osmanabad
12. Dipak S/o Rajendra Darade,
Age 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Pagori Pimpalgaon,
Tal. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Regional Division,
Mumbai
3. The Superintending Engineer (PWD),
Circle, Mumbai
4. The Executive Engineer,
Ekatmikrut Ghatak (P.W.) Division,
2nd Floor, Bandhkam Bhavan,
25, Marzaban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5589 OF 2016
Sachin S/o Sandipan Sanap,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Service,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
20 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Tagadgaon, Tal. Shirpur (Kasar),
District Beed ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Regional Division,
Mumbai
3.
The Superintending Engineer (PWD),
Circle, Mumbai
4. The Executive Engineer,
Ekatmikrut Ghatak (P.W.) Division,
2nd Floor, Bandhkam Bhavan,
25, Marzaban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 ..Respondents
----
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner/s in
W.P.Nos. 2908/2016, 2772/2016, 2894/2016, 2907/2016,
2911/2016, 5473/2016, 5550/2016 and 5589/2016
Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the
petitioner/s in W.P.No. 2776/2016
Mr. Madhav C. Ghode, Advocate for the petitioner/s in
W.P.No. 2781/2016
Mr. S.Y. Deopujare, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in
W.P. No. 2908/2016
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader with Mr. S.K. Kadam
and Mr. A.G. Magare, AGPs, for the respondents/State in
all the writ petitions
----
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::
21 wp2908-2016-group
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30TH JUNE, 2016
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 18TH JULY, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The petitioners who are possessing degrees in Civil Engineering, have been excluded from the eligibility for the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted), since the candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering for a duration of three years only have been held eligible for the said posts. The petitioners have challenged Rule 3 (b) (ii) of "The Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted) in the Public Works Department and the Irrigation Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1998", dated 1st January, ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 ::: 22 wp2908-2016-group 1998 (for shot, "the impugned Rule") prescribing the requisite qualification for the said post as three years Diploma in Civil Engineering, recognised by the Government or any other qualification, recognised as equivalent thereto. They have further challenged the advertisement dated 15th February, 2016, published by respondent No. 2 i.e. the President, State Level Direct Recruitment Selection Committee, Nagpur and Executive Director (VPVM), Nagpur, calling for the applications from the eligible candidates possessing the above mentioned Diploma for filling up 1256 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted). Some of the petitioners had filed Original Applications before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ("MAT", for short) and sought interim stay to the selection process. The MAT refused interim stay vide order dated 1st March, 2016. Therefore, the said petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 1st March, 2016, have sought to quash and set aside that order. The petitioners further claimed that their applications for the above-said posts may be directed to be accepted and they may be allowed to participate in the selection process.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 :::23 wp2908-2016-group
4. Based on the averments made in the applications and certain advertisements issued by some other departments/institutions for the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil), the learned counsel for the respective petitioners submit that the petitioners are possessing higher qualification i.e. Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) than the qualification prescribed for the above mentioned posts i.e. three years Diploma in Civil Engineering. According to them, higher qualification cannot be held to be a disqualification for the above-said posts. It is stated that the other departments which have filled up the similar posts have allowed the degree holders in Engineering (Civil) to participate in the selection process for the said posts.
The impugned Rule 3 (b) (ii) and the advertisement dated 15th February, 2016, excluding the petitioners-degree holders in Engineering from being considered for the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) (Group-B) (Non-
gazetted), because they are possessing higher qualification, is arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. According to them, the orders passed by the MAT in Original Application St. Nos. 310, 323, 329 and 331 of 2016 on 1st March, 2016, refusing to grant ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 ::: 24 wp2908-2016-group the interim relief to stay the selection process for the above mentioned posts, is not legal, proper and correct.
5. The respondents filed the replies through the Executive Director, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur and opposed the petitions. On the strength of the averments made in these replies, various Government Resolutions and various Rules, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that as per the Government Resolution dated 16th April, 1984, issued by the Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Government decided to confer the status of Gazetted officers on the Junior Engineers working in Irrigation as well as Public Works Departments. Accordingly, it was decided that the Junior Engineers holding the Diploma in Engineering having duration of three years and having served for five years, the Junior Engineers possessing Diploma having duration of two years and having served for seven years and Junior Engineers who were not possessing even the Diploma in Engineering but having served for ten years, would be conferred the status of Gazetted officers. However, the Junior Engineers possessing Degree in Engineering (B.E.) were ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 ::: 25 wp2908-2016-group given the said status of Gazetted Officers from day one.
The Junior Engineers possessing degree in Engineering and the Junior Engineers possessing Diploma or not even the Diploma but having served for five years, seven years and ten yeas, respectively, as stated above, were called "Gazetted Officers - Class-II (Lower Grade)". It was further decided to divide the cadre of Junior Engineers into two groups. Accordingly, the Junior Engineers holding degree were designated as "Assistant Engineer - Grade-II", while the Junior Engineers who were holding Diploma or having no Diploma but having served for the abovementioned period, were designated as "Sectional Engineers". It was decided that there should be 25% of the posts of Assistant Engineers - Grade-II out of the total strength of Junior Engineers. It was further decided that in future, the candidates holding degree in Engineering would be appointed by nomination through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade-II as per the Maharashtra Service of Engineers - Group-B (Recruitment) Rules, 1997, dated 16th June, 1997 (for short, "Recruitment Rule of Degree Holders") made by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 ::: 26 wp2908-2016-group conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules, excepting Rule 8, were made applicable with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1981. Likewise on the same day, the "Sectional Engineer (Civil) - Group-B in the Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Recruitment) Rules, 1997 (for short, "Recruitment Rules of Diploma Holders") came to be framed by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, for being applied with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1981. As per the Recruitment Rules of Diploma Holders, the appointment to the said posts were to be made by promotion on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness, from amongst the persons holding the posts of Junior Engineers who have put in not less than five years regular service as such
- if they possess a three year Diploma, seven years regular service - if they possess the requisite certificate, and ten years regular service - who are not possessing either Diploma or requisite certificate.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that for filling up the remaining 75% of posts ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:42 ::: 27 wp2908-2016-group of Junior Engineers, which were designated as "Junior Engineer (Civil) Group `B' - Non-gazetted", in order to extend the Diploma holders an opportunity to get Government service, "The Junior Engineer (Civil) Group `B' Non-gazetted in the Public Works Department and the Irrigation Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1998 (i.e. "the impugned Rules") dated 1st January, 1998 came to be framed by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in supersession of all existing Rules, orders or instruments made in this behalf.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Circular dated 16th December, 1998, it was clarified that 25% of the posts out of the total strength of Junior Engineers would be filled up as "Assistant Engineer Grade-II Gazetted" by nomination through Maharashtra Public Service Commission and out of the remaining 75% posts, 90% of the posts would be filled up by nomination from amongst the Diploma holders through the Regional Staff Selection Board, while 10% out of the said 75% posts would be filled up by promotion. To cut short, it is the contention of the ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 28 wp2908-2016-group learned counsel for the respondents that 25% posts out of the total strength of Junior Engineers have been reserved for the candidates holding degrees, while out of the remaining 75% of the total strength of the Junior Engineers, 90% pots have been reserved for being filled up by nomination from amongst the candidates holding Diploma and the remaining 10% have been earmarked for the in-service employees to be appointed by promotion.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the sanctioned posts of Deputy Engineers are to be filled up through different modes in the ratio 34:66%. The said 34% of the posts of Deputy Engineers are to be filled up by direct recruitment through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission from the degree holders who are designated as Assistant Engineers-I, for which Diploma holders are not entitled to apply. 33% posts out of the remaining 66% posts of Deputy Engineers are reserved for being filled up from amongst the Degree holders serving for a minimum period of three years as Assistant Engineers-II by promotion. The posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer-I, are to be filled up by nomination through Maharashtra ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 29 wp2908-2016-group Public Service Commission from amongst the candidates holding Degree in Engineering. For all these posts, the Diploma holders in Engineering cannot be considered. He submits that considering the various avenues for being selected by nomination as well as by promotion available to the candidates holding Degrees in Engineering and with a view to extend sufficient opportunity to the holders of Diplomas in Engineering, who otherwise would not be entitled to compete for the posts which are exclusively meant for the candidates holding Degrees in Engineering, as stated above, 25% of posts at the entry level came to be reserved for the candidates holding the Degree in Engineering and the remaining 75% of posts came to be reserved for the candidates holding Diploma in Engineering (out of which 90% posts were to be filled up by nomination and 10% by promotion). He submits that this classification is quite reasonable. He further submits that the Degree in Engineering cannot be held to be the higher qualification of Diploma in Engineering, in the sense that for acquiring the Degree in Engineering, it is not necessary that one should possess a Diploma in Engineering. He submits that the petitioners who are holding Degree in Engineering are ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 30 wp2908-2016-group not eligible to apply for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted), due to the above mentioned reasonable classification. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be dismissed.
9. After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the Government circulars and resolutions produced on record with reference to the pleadings of the parties, the picture that emerges is that out of the total strength of Junior Engineers, 25% have been earmarked for being filled up by nomination through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission from amongst the candidates holding Degree in Civil Engineering. The candidates so selected would get the status of gazetted officer from day one and would be called "Assistant Engineer - Grade-II. Out of the remaining 75% of posts, 90% of posts are to be filled up by nomination through the Regional Staff Selection Board from amongst the candidates holding three years Diplomas in Civil Engineering, recognised by the Government or any other qualification equivalent thereto, recognised by the Government in view of the impugned Rule 3 (b) (ii) and 10% posts would be filled ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 31 wp2908-2016-group up by promotion from amongst the eligible Engineering Assistants having served as such for not less than three years. The said Junior Engineers were to be designated as "Junior Engineer (Civil) Group-B Non-gazetted". From this factual position, it is clear that the candidates holding the Degrees in Civil Engineering have not been totally ignored for being considered for the posts of Junior Engineers. In fact, they have been given 25% of posts having Gazetted status and would stand on a higher pedestal as compared to the position of the Junior Engineers - Non-gazetted from the quota of 75% of posts.
Moreover, the candidates holding the Degrees in Civil Engineering would be eligible for being considered by nomination to the posts of Assistant Engineer-I and Assistant Executive Engineer, to which the candidates holding the Diplomas in Engineering would not be eligible. It is, thus, clear that the petitioners/ holders of Degrees in Engineering cannot be said to have been denied the opportunity to apply for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Group-B (Non-gazetted) only because they are holding Degrees in Civil Engineering.
As a matter of fact, by classifying the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) into two groups, the candidates ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 32 wp2908-2016-group holding Degrees in Civil Engineering have been given 25% of posts to which the candidates holding the Diploma are not entitled to be considered. In order to extend an opportunity of Government service to the candidates holding Diploma in Civil Engineering, out of the remaining 75% posts, 90% of posts have been earmarked for them to which the candidates holding the Degrees in Civil Engineering would not be entitled to apply as per the impugned Rule 3 (b) (ii).
10. It is strange to note that the petitioners did not at all whisper about reservation of 25% of posts of Junior Engineers for the candidates holding the Degrees in Civil Engineering as provided in the Government Resolution dated 16th April, 1984. When the petitioners are claiming the extraordinary relief under the writ jurisdiction of this Court, it was expected of them to disclose all the material facts in their petitions.
However, it seems that the petitioners have totally suppressed the fact that out of the total strength of Junior Engineers, 25% of posts have been reserved for the candidates holding Degree in Civil Engineering. They have further kept it undisclosed that there are ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 33 wp2908-2016-group additional avenues available to them in the Public Works Department and Irrigation Department for being considered for the posts of Assistant Engineer-I and Assistant Executive Engineer, which posts are to be filled up to the extent of 34% and 40%, respectively by nomination through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, to which the candidates holding Diplomas would not be eligible. The petitioners have created a picture as if they have been totally deprived of the opportunity of being considered for the posts of Junior Engineers, which has been washed out by the contents of the replies filed on behalf of the respondents.
11. Now the question would be whether the classification of the posts as has been done by the respondents is reasonable in the sense that it would not infringe the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Here, a reference may be conveniently made to the judgment in the case of Alok Kumar Misra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others MANU/UP/0876/2016, delivered on 2nd May, 2016 by the High Court of Allahabad, the facts whereof are almost identical to that of the present case. In that case, an ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 34 wp2908-2016-group advertisement was issued for holding a combined selection for the posts of Junior Engineers in various fields of Engineering, such as Civil, Mechanical and Electrical, for various Departments and Corporations under the State of U.P. The terms and conditions of recruitment to those posts were governed by the Rules made under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The qualification prescribed for selection and appointment to the posts of Junior Engineers referred to therein was Diplomas in the respective fields of Engineering. In view of Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-`C') Service Rules, 2014 also, the requisite educational qualification for the post of Junior Engineer was that the candidate must possess three years Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh or a qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. The petitioners therein relying upon the decisions in Jyoti K.K. and others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others 2010 (15) SCC 596, State of Haryana and another Vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan and another 2006 (11) SCC 153 and Ajay Kumar Uttam Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 35 wp2908-2016-group others SWP No. 2670 of 2001, contended that they being Degree holders in Engineering, which is a higher qualification in the same faculty/stream of Engineering, are presupposed to possess the lower qualification of Diploma and therefore, they are fully eligible for being considered in the selection in question, but the opposite parties, even after having allowed them to appear in the written examination and having called them for interview, orally debarred them from appearing therein on the date of interview, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. In that case, the Public Information Officer of the Commission, in response to the requisition made under the Right to Information Act, had informed that a Degree holder was eligible for being considered for selection. It was pointed out by the petitioners therein that in the previous years, the Degree holders were permitted to appear for the examination for the post of Junior Engineer held by the Subordinate Service Selection Commission as also the Public Service Commission. The learned counsel appearing for the Commission, in that case, had contended that the reliance placed upon the judgments referred to therein by the petitioners was misconceived ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 36 wp2908-2016-group as the said judgments were based upon the language used in the Rules applicable therein. He also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab and others Vs. Anita and others 2015 (2) SCC 170, P.M. Latha and another Vs. State of Kerla and others 2003 (3) SCC 541 and Yogesh Kumar and others Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi and others 2003 (3) SCC 548, to rebut the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners therein and stated that the decisions relied upon by him have already been considered in the aforesaid decisions.
12. After considering the rival contentions as well as the case law cited by the contesting parties, in support of their respective contentions, the learned Judge dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioners cannot be presumed to be possessing the lower qualification of Diploma in Engineering as in order to possess a Degree in Engineering, it is not necessary to first of all pass or possess a Diploma in Engineering. In paragraph No. 21 of the judgment, the learned Judge quoted the following two paragraphs from the judgment delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court in ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 37 wp2908-2016-group Writ Petition No. 643 (SS) of 2015 in the matter of Vikas Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and connected petitions, which would justify earmarking certain posts for the candidates holding the Diploma in Engineering only.
"But in the present controversy, a degree education in Civil, Mechanical or Electrical Engineering, by no stretch of imagination, can be attributed to the effect that the candidate had attained the diploma qualification in that stream because for taking admission in the Bachelors Course does not envisage the attaining of the diploma qualification as a pre-requisite. So, holding the diploma cannot be equated with holding of the degree in the engineering stream. The exception can be made even in such situation if the rules of the recruitment contemplate to that effect and it was the situation probably in the Jyoti K.K. and others case (supra) where Kerala State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1956 had such provision, but here, in Uttarakhand, the Rules have been enacted in 2003 and there is no such provision analogous to the Rules of Kerala.
That apart, if a degree holder in a particular stream will always exclude the diploma holder in that stream then the scope to get employment for the diploma holders will always be very little if not closed altogether because where a degree and diploma holders both are permitted to attend the same examination without any discrimination then in all probabilities, the degree holders will always take lead as against the diploma holders. So, the opportunity to get a government job will almost be closed to the diploma holders and in other words the ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 :::
38 wp2908-2016-group persons who are not capable enough to take the qualification of a degree and cannot afford the monetary expenses to get their degree course, will always be deprived from the government job where the diploma is the minimum qualification to make the candidate eligible for the post."
13. In our opinion, the views expressed by the learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand High Court, referred to above, are quite reasonable and acceptable. The observations made in the above-referred paragraphs indicate the rationale behind classification made between the holders of Degrees and Diplomas in Engineering. In the case at hand, after reserving 25% of posts of Junior Engineers for being filled up by nomination from amongst the candidates holding Degrees in Civil Engineering, if the remaining posts are reserved for the candidates holding Diplomas in Civil Engineering, obviously with a view that they should not be excluded from being considered for the posts of Junior Engineers and in order to extend them an opportunity to get Government service, who could not afford the monetary expenses to get Degree course or who did not find themselves capable enough to take qualification of a Degree, it cannot be said that the ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 39 wp2908-2016-group classification that has been done by the respondents is irrational, unreasonable or unconstitutional.
14. The various advertisements issued by the District Selection Committee Aurangabad, Zilla Parishad Nagpur, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai, etc. whereby the candidates holding Degrees in Engineering also were held eligible for the posts of Junior Engineers, are of no use to the petitioners herein to substantiate their case, since the above-stated institutions are governed by their respective Recruitment Rules. As stated above, we do not find any discrimination on the part of the respondents in framing the impugned Rule and advertising the posts of Junior Engineers (Group-B Non-gazetted), calling for the applications from the candidates holding Diplomas in Civil Engineering only and not from the candidates holding Degrees in Civil Engineering.
15. Certain judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. The first judgment is in the case of Mohit s/o Prashant ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 40 wp2908-2016-group Meshram and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation & Water Conservation and others, Writ Petition No. 1011 of 2016, delivered by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur between 13 th to 16th April, 2016, wherein the petitioners who were Diploma and Degree holders in Engineering and appointed on contract basis for a period of eleven months by the Water Conservation Department of the State Government in the Vidarbha Region in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 23rd August, 2013, had sought regularization of their services. Though the Court was of the view that the petitioners and the other Engineers that were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23 rd August, 2013, were not entitled to regularization, the statement made on behalf of the State Government that the State Government would exclude 28 posts of Junior Engineers for the Vidarbha Region from the advertisement, dated 15th February, 2016 so that their cases would be considered on the basis of the criteria mentioned in the affidavit, came to be accepted and with those observations, the writ petition was dismissed. We do not find anything in this judgment which would advance the case of the petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 :::41 wp2908-2016-group
16. In the case of Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No. 1489/2010 and other connected writ petitions, decided by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur on 2nd July, 2010, the question was whether introduction of NET/SLET as eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions as per Gazette Notification dated 11.7.2009 prescribed by University Grants Commission (UGC) will affect the selections and appointments made in accordance with the approved advertisements/notifications published before 11.7.2009 when the eligibility condition was not compulsory NET or SLET. The finding of the Court on this issue has no bearing on the facts of the present case.
17. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, 1997 (4) SCC 18, it has been held that where the applications were called prescribing a last date for filing the application, the eligibility of the candidates would be judged with reference to that date only. In the case of Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 42 wp2908-2016-group Baig, 1999 (1) SCC 544, it has been observed that once the election process has commenced and even the last date for submitting application is over, subsequent change will not affect the process of selection so having commenced. Therefore, the appointment made on the basis of such process cannot be nullified. The ratio laid down in these rulings practically has no bearing on the controversy involved in the present writ petitions.
18. As discussed above, the classification made by the respondents prescribing the educational qualification of Degree in Civil Engineering for 25% of the posts out of the total strength of the posts of Junior Engineers and leaving the remaining 75% posts to be filled up from amongst the candidates holding Diploma in Civil Engineering, is quite reasonable and rationale.
The impugned Rule cannot be characterized as arbitrary, irrational or unconstitutional. Consequently, the impugned advertisement based on the said Rule cannot be assailed on any ground.
19. While challenging the vires of impugned Rule 3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 43 wp2908-2016-group
(b) (ii) and the impugned advertisement, the petitioners have suppressed the fact that 25% of the posts out of the total strength of the posts of Junior Engineers reserved for being filled up from the candidates holding the Degree in Civil Engineering. This suppression of material fact would dis-entitle the petitioners from claiming any relief. In fact, when the petitioners wanted to challenge vires of the impugned Rule, it was necessary for them firstly to challenge the Government Resolution dated 16th April, 1984, whereby classification was introduced by reserving 25% of the total strength of Junior Engineers for being filled up exclusively from the candidates possessing the Degrees in Civil Engineering. They should have further challenged the validity of the Recruitment Rules of Degree Holders of 1997 whereunder as per Rule 3 (ii) the candidates possessing Degrees in Civil Engineering or any other qualification declared by Government to be equivalent thereto only have been held eligible for being appointed to the posts of Assistant Engineers, Group-B (Gazetted), which were to be filled up through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to the extent of 25% of the total strength of Junior Engineers. Keeping the very ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 ::: 44 wp2908-2016-group source of the alleged discrimination intact, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge validity of the offshoot thereof, as has been tried to be done by them by these petitions. The petitions are liable to be dismissed. The order dated 9 th March, 2016 whereunder the respondents were directed to accept the application forms of the petitioners will have to be recalled and the applications of the petitioners will have to be directed to be ignored. In the result, we pass the following order :-
(i) All the writ petitions are dismissed.
(ii) The order dated 9th March, 2016 passed by this Court is vacated.
(iii) The respondents may proceed with the selection process ignoring the applications of the petitioners.
(iv) Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(v) No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp2908-2016-group
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 :::
45 wp2908-2016-group
20. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners pray for continuation of the interim relief which was in force during the pendency of these writ petitions, for further period of four weeks. The learned Government Pleader strongly opposed the prayer for continuation of the interim relief.
21.
In the facts and circumstances, discussed above in the judgment and since the selection process has already been set in motion, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for continuation of the interim relief any more. Hence, the prayer for continuation of the interim relief for further four weeks stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp2908-2016-group
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:43 :::