SURYAPRAKASH TARACHAND BANSWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent no. 4 inviting applications for the three posts of Assistant Lecturer petitioner applied from the category of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was not selected inter alia was not issued with the appointment order. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner initially has filed the writ petition claiming following reliefs -

(3.) Miss Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the selection process was conducted by respondents no. 3 and 4 in a clandestine manner. After the interviews were held the result was not declared. The petitioner made representation to respondent no. 4 contending that no select list was published by respondent no. 4. The information was sought by the petitioner, twice reminders were issued. The petitioner found one Mr. N. G. Humbe felicitating Mr. Ashok Nathu Tambatkar in the valedictory function organized on 31.10.2012. Mr. Humbe was one of the candidate who had appeared for the interview along with the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted representation and the reminders demanding the final select list of successful candidates, however, respondents no. 3 and 4 did not respond. Respondent no. 2, under letter dated 11.12.2012, directed respondent no. 4 to look into the grievance of the petitioner for supplying the necessary information. The petitioner also approached under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Assistant Commissioner (Backward Class Cell), Aurangabad took stock of the grievance raised by the petitioner and directed respondent no. 2 to take necessary action and submit the report. In pursuance to the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Public Information Officer H.P.O. under its communication dated 27.02.2013 supplied a list of 76 postal letters delivered on 04.10.2012 along with booking reports and the list in respect of recipients of the postal letters dispatched on the said date. It is evident that except the petitioner no other candidate was called by respondent no. 4 for attending the interview scheduled on 12.10.2012. On 06.11.2012 news item was published in Daily Maharashtra Times wherein the fact of appointment of Mr. Ravindra Torwane as new Principal and the list of faculty members were shown in which name of Mr. N. G. Humbe was also shown. The learned Advocate submits that respondents no. 3 and 4 are under obligation to observe reservation policy. Out of eight posts four posts are required to be reserved for S.C. / S.T. / O.B.C. categories, however, not a single post of Assistant Lecturer from these categories is filled in. The petitioner was the only eligible candidate belonging to S.C. category. The report prepared by the Inspector of Arts and Scriptures is manipulated document since the chart containing marks of evaluation and select list was neither published on the notice board of the College nor were supplied to the petitioner. There is no mention in the report dated 11.02.2013 that respondents no. 5 to 7 who are appointed had applied in pursuance of the advertisement and were called for interview. According to the learned Advocate, the appointments of respondents no. 5 to 7 are without sanction and in violation of doctrine of employment.