DILIP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur setting aside his appointment as a Police Patil at the instance of respondent No. 3. The petitioner applied for appointment as a Police Patil in pursuance of an advertisement. He claimed that, as per the Government Gazette dt. 20.5.2009, a candidate who is a legal heir of a Police Patil who either retires or dies while in service, is entitled to get preference in the matter of appointment to the said post. In the selection process, six marks were reserved for such candidates. Respondent No. 3 (herein) was an ordinary person not being a legal heir of a Police Patil. He lodged an objection before appearing in the selection process against grant of six marks to the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled to such marks since he was not a legal heir of a Police Patil. The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 along with one more candidate appeared in the selection process and the petitioner was selected only because he was granted six additional marks by reason of his being a legal heir of a Police Patil.

(3.) The Respondent No. 3 (herein) challenged the appointment of the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal came to a conclusion that it was not permissible to give preference to the legal heirs of a Police Patil while making appointment to the post of Police Patil and relied on the judgments in the cases of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Shrinivasulu and Ors., 2003 5 SCC 341 and Bhibhudatta v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 4 SCC 16 which lay down that a rule which provides for preference can be operated only where one or more of the candidates are equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor. On facts, the Tribunal observed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Washim had granted six additional preferential marks to the petitioner and that was the only reason why the petitioner was selected. In the result, the Tribunal directed the SDM to correct the final marks sheet by deducting six additional marks which were granted to the petitioner and issue an appointment order in favour of the candidate securing highest number of marks. While doing so, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 (herein) was not entitled to challenge his selection since respondent No. 3 has participated in the process of selection and that he approached the Tribunal only because he was not selected.