Bombay High Court
Nutan Bharat Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 June, 2021
Author: C. V. Bhadang
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C. V. Bhadang
skn 1 3-WPST-96697.2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 96697 OF 2020
Nutan Bharat Pawar. ... Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.
Mr.Jayendra D. Khairnar for the Petitioner.
Mr.N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for the Respondent- State.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
C. V. BHADANG, JJ.
(Through Video-Conferencing) DATE : 8 June 2021.
P.C. :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner had applied for a post of Shikshan Sevak pursuant to an advertisement issued by Respondent No.5 on 27 February 2019. The Petitioner had applied under the Scheduled Tribe category. Since the Petitioner was not selected, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2021 21:54:06 :::skn 2 3-WPST-96697.2020.doc
3. The short controversy raised in this petition is whether the Petitioner applied under Scheduled Tribe Non-PESA, that is:
Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas category or under Scheduled Tribe (PESA) category. According to the Petitioner, when the Petitioner filled in the form online, she had specifically mentioned that she is from non-PESA area and insistence of Respondents for a certificate as residing in PESA area and consequent non-selection is incorrect.
4. A reply affidavit is filed by the Respondent, to which a copy of the form filled in by the Petitioner is annexed. The Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner resides in the PESA area and has further mentioned Nashik as the district for that purpose. This document is placed on record by the Director of Education Primary, Maharashtra State, and it is an extract from the System data. We have no reason to disbelieve the same. There is no error in not appointing the Petitioner since the Petitioner did not submit a PESA residence certificate having applied under that category.
5. The petition had come on board on 16 December 2020, where the Court had noted that the vacancies have already been filled in and no interim relief was granted. In these circumstances, no direction that the Petitioner should be appointed pursuant to the selection process initiated on 27 February 2019 can be issued.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner then submits that ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2021 21:54:06 ::: skn 3 3-WPST-96697.2020.doc the entry that the Petitioner is in the PESA area category will continue to remain in the System data of the Respondents, and it will create complications in case the Petitioner wants to apply again for the post.
7. It is open to the Petitioner to apply to Respondent No.4 for correction of record pursuant to the case of the Petitioner that she does not reside in the PESA area. If such an application is made by the Petitioner to Respondent No.4 within four weeks from today, Respondent No.4 will endeavour, subject to other pressing time- bound commitments, to examine the same to take necessary action within eight weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the Petitioner.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2021 21:54:06 :::