KIRTI VINAYAK KINGE Vs. ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent Municipal Corporation. The subject matter of this petition concerns appointment/selection as Associate Professor in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine, which was a reserved post for OBC Female category in BMC regulated colleges/hospitals.

(2.) The Petitioner is an OBC woman. Eight posts advertised for Associate Professors in Preventive and Social Medicine in MCGM medical colleges at Mumbai included one post reserved for OBC Female. The advertisement inviting applications from candidates made it clear that if no suitable eligible female candidate was found, appointment shall be made from the particular reserved category of the other gender. It is the Petitioner's case that she was eligible for the appointment, having regard to the criteria for selection/appointment advertised in the notice inviting applications. It is the Petitioner's case that despite being eligible and despite having applied and appeared at an interview before the interview panel appointed by the Respondent Corporation, the Respondent Corporation did not select or appoint her, but instead appointed Respondent No.6, who is a male OBC. The Petitioner challenges the appointment as arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) It is borne out by the record of the case, which is produced with the petition and enclosed in the affidavits filed on behalf of MCGM as well as the private respondent (Respondent No.6), whose appointment is challenged before us, that there were only two female candidates, who had applied for the post reserved for OBC females. These included the Petitioner herself and one Dr. Ranjana Zade. Both were found to be eligible according to the criteria of education, etc., and called for interview. Dr. Ranjana Zade did not appear for the interview. The Petitioner was the only female candidate, belonging to the OBC category, who appeared for the interview. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Corporation indicates that the interview panel, which consisted of senior doctors (four of them, respectively, being (i) Director of Medical Education and Major Hospitals (ii) Dean, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, (iii) Head of Department and Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine Department at Topiwala National Medical College, and (iv) Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine Department, Grant Medical College), did not find the Petitioner to be suitable for the job. The Respondent Corporation has averred in its reply that during the interview, the Petitioner was not able to answer questions properly on the subject of Community Medicine and that the interview panel did not find her to be properly communicative, which is a major requirement for the position of an Associate Professor in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine. The Corporation has claimed that the Petitioner, who was the only female candidate from OBC category, who appeared for the interview, was found "not fit" for the position of Associate Professor in the subject, and, in the premises, in accordance with Clause 10.11 of the advertisement, the reserved post was transferred to male of the same category, i.e. OBC, and Respondent No.6, an OBC male candidate, having been found to be eligible by the interview panel, was selected for the appointment.