KIRAN CHHAGANLAL PAWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 8th December, 2014 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, ("MAT" for short) Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 653 of 2013 and the show-cause notice dated 31st August, 2013.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed from the memo of the Petition, leading to filing of this Writ Petition are that in the year 2007, Respondent No.1 published an advertisement for filling up the post of Supervisor from the female candidates. It is submitted that the petitioner, being qualified for the said post, sent necessary application along with various documents on 15th November, 2007. On 26th July, 2009, the petitioner appeared for written examination and successfully passed the same. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview on 7th August, 2009. Thereafter, on 30th October, 2009, the petitioner was informed that she was selected for the post of Supervisor in the Scheduled Tribe category and hence, as per the Government Resolution dated 16th August, 2000, she should submit the caste validity certificate. It is submitted that on 6th November, 2009, the petitioner sent an application along with her relieving letter from the earlier employment, caste certificate and caste validity certificate.

(3.) It is submitted that the order dated 10th November, 2009 was issued to the petitioner informing that she has been appointed on the vacant post of Supervisor in the Child Development Service Scheme, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is submitted that as per the appointment order dated 10th November, 2009, the petitioner joined the services on 19th November, 2009. It is submitted that in the month of July, 2010, the petitioner was given the first increment and thereafter the second increment in the month of July, 2011. The petitioner has become permanent employee, after completion of probation period of two years and the service of the petitioner were continued till 31st August, 2013 and even today she continues to be in service. It is submitted that for the first time on 31st August, 2013, the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2, stating that she applied from the category of female heir of ex-soldier/ex-serviceman though she was not eligible and qualified and had given incorrect information, therefore, calling upon her to explain why her services should not be terminated. It is further submitted that on 3rd October, 2013, the petitioner gave her explanation/reply to the said show-cause notice and pointed out that she had applied only from the category of S.T. and not from the category of the heir of ex-serviceman/ex-soldier. However, Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not accept her explanation. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 653 of 2013 on 31st August, 2013 before the MAT. It is submitted that the MAT by its judgment dated 8th December, 2014 dismissed Original Application filed by the petitioner by observing that the last candidate selected from the post of ST category was having higher marks than that of the petitioner and hence the petitioner was not qualified for the post of ST, and it is clear that she was selected from the category of heir of ex-serviceman/soldier. Therefore, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above judgment, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.