RAVIKIRAN BHUJANGRAO VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) A reference may briefly be made to the facts. An advertisement came to be published for filling up 156 posts of Armed Police Constables in the State Reserve Police Force Group No.3 Jalna. Out of which 27 posts have been reserved for SC category to which the petitioner belongs, 5 per cent posts have also been reserved for the category of sportsman who have participated in any of the 28 enlisted sports either at the State level (Inter District), Inter-University level and National or international level. According to the petitinoer since the petitioner had fulfilled the requisite criteria which was prescribed for being eligible to be considered for appointment in the category of sportsman, the petitioner had submitted his application. The petitioner had successfully undergone physical test and the petitioner was allowed to appear for the written test which the petitioner had passed successfully. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview in the second week of September, 2007. All the successful candidates were thereafter referred for medical test. A list of the successful candidates was displayed. The petitioner s name prominently figured in the said list of selected candidates. According to the petitioner, he came to be selected from the category of SC/Sportsman category and accordingly an endorsement was made against his name to that effect in the said list.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by his cancellation of selection approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.58 of 2008 and also filed an application seeking interim relief. The interim relief which the petitioner had sought for in the said application was of keeping one post of armed police constable vacant in the category of scheduled caste/sportsman. The Tribunal by order which is impugned in the present petition dated 24.3.2008 rejected the application for interim relief on the ground that the certificate which had been tendered by the petitioner at the time of his selection did not indicate that the inter-university tournament held in the year 1998-99 at Gulbarga was held at National level and therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the aforesaid certificate was of no assistance to the petitioner to claim benefit of Rule 6(1)(b) of the said Rules.