DATTATRAYA GAJANAN SHENDKAR Vs. PRESIDENT DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have prayed for appointment on the post of Health Workers (Male) (Sprayer) under open category along with the other benefits. They have filed this Petition and made prayers on 11 February 2014, based upon an Advertisement dated 25/04/2012.

(2.) Respondent No.1 issued an advertisement in a daily newspaper calling applications for 62 posts of Health Worker (Male) (Sprayer) out of which 29 posts were reserved for Open category. The Petitioners appeared in the interview on 29/05/2012. The Petitioners, being selected, their names listed in the waiting list published by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under the Open Category (Petitioner No.1 at serial No. 2, Petitioner No.2 at serial No.3 and Petitioner No.3 at serial No.8). On 15 April 2013 and 3 June 2013, Respondent No.2 wrote to the Director, Health Services, Mumbai, Deputy Secretary, Rural Development, Mantralaya, Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, that the posts were vacant due to the non appointment of 11 candidates as there were fault in their experience certificates, further Respondent No.2 sought directions from the above authorities in the matter of recruitment of the 11 candidates. Only on 16 September 2013, the Petitioners submitted a representation to Respondent No.3 to fill the vacant posts in from the waiting list candidates. On 18 January 2014, the desk officer Mantralaya had directed that as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Respondent No. 2 is the appointing authority and Respondent No.4 is the authority for administration related decisions and hence they are the only competent authority to take decision in the matter of 11 candidates whose experience certificates were found faulty.

(3.) Admittedly, the Petitioners were in the waiting list. The Respondents, for various reasons, including above, could not appoint candidates from the waiting list, including the Petitioners. The Petitioners made the representation on 16.09.2013 as recorded above, not within a year. Respondents could not fill in the posts within one year. We have to consider the case of the Petitioners in view of the above facts and the following the law.