SHARAD Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner who belongs to Vimukta Jati - A seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to issue him an order of appointment on the post of Assistant Welfare Officer at the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited that is reserved for VJ-A candidates. On 16/1/2017, an advertisement came to be issued by the Company inviting applications for various posts which included five posts of Assistant Welfare Officer of which one post was reserved for the candidates from VJ-A. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the same on 6/2/2017. He appeared for the written examination and passed the same. He secured 46 marks out of 90 in the said examination. The petitioner was accordingly called for personal interview on 2/6/2017. The petitioner appeared at the said personal interview. Thereafter, on 27/7/2017, a provisional list of candidates came to be published calling upon the candidates to submit relevant documents for verification. The date and time for submission of such documents was communicated and it was stated that failure to submit the said documents at the relevant date and time would result in the candidate not being considered. The name of one Jyoti Ramdas Doundkar was shown select list while the petitioner 's name was shown at Sr. No. 1 in the wait list. It appears that the said candidate who was placed in the select list remained absent as a result of which her documents could not be verified. On getting knowledge of the same, the petitioner moved a representation on 3/8/2017 stating therein that he be considered for appointment since the candidate in the select list had remained absent during verification of documents. Thereafter, on 22/9/2017, a final select list of candidates appointed on the post of Assistant Welfare Officer came to be published. The name of the petitioner, however, did not figure in the select list though his name was shown in the list of eligible candidates. The petitioner therefore submitted representations to the Executive Director (Human Resources) as well as the Managing Director stating therein that he be issued an appointment order. According to the petitioner, these representations remained pending and the same were not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various other representations to other authorities and though he was assured that appropriate action would be taken, nothing further happened in the matter. It is in this backdrop that the present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking redressal of the petitioner 's grievance of his non-appointment on the post of Assistant Welfare Officer.

(3.) Shri A.S. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of appointment on the post of Assistant Welfare Officer for no justifiable reason. He submitted that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the wait list. On the selected candidate having failed to submit relevant documents for verification, she was held to be not eligible to participate further in the recruitment process. Consequentially, the petitioner ought to have been shifted from the wait list to the select list especially when his documents had been verified and there was no impediment in issuing him the appointment order. Despite immediately making representations on 30/11/2017, the Company through its Officers did not consider the same. The Company had thus sought to deprive the petitioner of his appointment. According to him, failure to consider the representations could not result in depriving the petitioner of such appointment. In that regard, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 684] as well as the judgment of the Division Bench at the Principal Seat in Deepak Pandurang More Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1137/2021 decided on 29/3/2023]. It was further submitted that though the petitioner would not have an absolute right of appointment, he was entitled to fair consideration of his case for appointment. Being placed at Sr. No. 1 in the wait list and the selected candidate having remained absent, there was no legal basis for denying the petitioner such appointment. The action of the Company was arbitrary since no reason was indicated for not appointing the petitioner. In that regard, reliance was placed on the decisions in i) Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47]; ii) R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India [1995 Supp (2) SCC 230]; and iii) N.T. Devin Katti And Others Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission And Others [(1990) 3 SCC 157]. It was then submitted that though the stand taken by the Company was that the life of the wait list was for a period of one year, there were various instances on record to indicate that on the basis of the same advertisement, the Company had made various appointments even after expiry of period of one year of the said wait list. In that context, a reference was made to the appointment order issued to one Tushar Velis on the post of Deputy Manager (Security) on 9/7/2019 and one Prakash Kantela on the post of Deputy Senior Manager (Security) vide order of appointment dtd. 23/10/2019. The stand taken by the Company that no candidate whose name was appearing in the wait list had been issued appointment order was incorrect and false for the reason that by communication dtd. 3/7/2018, the testing agency (ATTEST) which conducted the recruitment process had issued a communication stating therein that a candidate namely Satish Birkhede was moved from the select list to the wait list. The said candidate was thereafter issued an appointment order on 10/9/2018. During pendency of the Writ Petition, another appointment order was issued making appointment on the post of Junior Security Officer from the same advertisement which fact was not denied by the Company. In these facts, it was submitted that the petitioner ought to be issued an appointment order especially when one post of Assistant Welfare Officer had been kept vacant pursuant to the statement made on behalf of the Company as recorded by the order dtd. 19/8/2022. It was thus submitted that the relief as sought be granted.