TIKESHKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for the review applicant/ petitioner, Mrs. Hiwase, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 6, Shri Parihar, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 and Shri Pardhy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

(2.) The original petitioner has sought the review of the order dated 30th April 2012, disposing of Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011. In the said Writ Petition, he challenged the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5 on the post of Shikshan Sevak on the ground that she has secured less marks in B.Ed. Examination. He sought an appointment order in his favour in terms of advertisement dated 30th July 2010. Respondent No. 4 before this Court is employer Municipal Council while respondent No. 3 is the School. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 6 are the members of District Selection Committee, who completed selection process.

(3.) The review is sought on the ground that the review petitioner has obtained 61.67% marks in B.Ed. Examination while Respondent No. 5 secure only 61.17% marks. The other ground for review is, the statement that the petitioner has not studied Social Sciences at B.A. level is incorrect inasmuch as his mark sheet shows that he has studied History and Political Science at Graduation level. The third ground is the reason that Respondent No. 5 has studied Sociology for graduation is not relevant because not passing B.A. with Social Science as one of the subjects is not the reason given by the District Selection Committee for not selecting the petitioner and its affidavit in Writ Petition filed on 25.04.2012 was, therefore, unsustainable. It is submitted that the rejection of the petitioner was on the ground that he did not study Sociology. The forth reason given is alleged instructions by Respondent No. 6 that candidate to be selected should hold qualification of Literature in Hindi as also English. It is contended that if this reason is accepted and advertisement is read accordingly, absurd results follow. It is further pointed out that Respondent No. 6 has not signed proceedings of District Selection Committee. It is also stated that Special District Social Welfare Officer, Gondia, has placed signature on 18.05.2011 i.e. almost eight months after the selection proceedings.