1 WP9453.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9453 OF 2010 Maya Narsingh Suryawanshi ... Petitioner v/s 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Director of Education (Primary) 3. The Collector, Solapur. 4. The Zilla Parishad, Solapur. 5. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad Solapur. ... Respondents Mr.Laxman Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Vijay Killedar i/by Nitin Jamdar for Resp.Nos.4 and 5. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATED: 8TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction against the respondents to permit her to submit certificate of earthquake 2 WP9453.10 affected person and consider her claim for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak from the quota reserved for earthquake affected candidates. 3. During the pendency of this petition, we are informed that respondent No.4 was considering petitioner’s representation. However, respondent No.4 has now rejected the petitioner’s representation on 27.6.2011. Briefly stated, petitioner in the past participated in the selection process for filling 16 posts of Shikshan Sevak. The said selection process culminated with the interview on 21.6.2010 and on the basis of which the select list was published by the Selection Committee on 26.6.2010. The petitioner appeared for the interview on 21.6.2010 pursuant to the call letter received by her on 9.6.2010. In the interview, the petitioner was expected to produce the proof regarding the fact that she belongs to earthquake affected category. She was unable to do so on 21.6.2010. The Selection Committee gave her four days’ time to produce such certificate. The petitioner failed to produce the proof to establish that she belongs to earthquake affected person within the specified time. Instead, she presented those documents on 25.6.2010. As that was beyond time, the petitioner’s request to consider those documents was rejected. 3 WP9453.10 4. As aforesaid, the Selection Committee proceeded to publish the select list on 26.6.2010, notifying the names of 14 candidates as selected against the reservation of earthquake affected candidates out of the 16 earmarked for that purpose. The petitioner made representation to respondent No.4 which has now been rejected on 27.6.2011. The petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda v/s Chairman, Jee & ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779. In para 7 of the said decision the Court has observed that the candidates seeking appointment against the reserved category has to submit relevant documents. It is open to the Selection Committee to relax the condition. The claim of the candidate need not be rejected for non-production of proof at the time of interview. At the stage of interview, what is relevant to consider, is, whether the candidate has passed the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed by the Authority, In the present case, the fact that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification on the last date fixed by the Authority for the selection process to be taken forward is not in dispute. The only question is whether the Selection Committee and the concerned Authority is justified in ignoring the claim of the petitioner for non-production of requisite document, namely, the proof that she belongs to earthquake affected 4 WP9453.10 category, within time. Since the Selection Committee has discretion to relax the production of proof, it necessarily follows that it could have extended the time to do so until the select list was actually published. In the present case, it is common ground that the petitioner produced the document on 25.6.2010. The select list was published on 24.6.2010. However, considering the fact that the select list has already been published and considering the stand now taken by the counsel for respondent No.4, the petitioner’s request can be considered against the two vacant posts still available out of the notified vacancies. He further submits that as and when the department decides to re-notify these two vacancies, the petitioner’s claim can be considered. 5. We however are of the considered opinion that as and when the respondent No.4 decides to fill in the two vacant posts, respondent No.4 shall give intimation in that behalf to the petitioner and call upon the petitioner to produce the requisite documents within seven days from the date of receipt of communication so sent to the petitioner and if the petitioner responds to the said communication in time, may consider to appoint the petitioner against one of the existing vacancies instead of notifying the same again. However, if the petitioner does not respond to the said communication in time, it would be open to the respondent No.4 to issue 5 WP9453.10 notification/advertisement to fill up the available vacancies including the two vacancies available as of now. This arrangement would meet the ends of justice. We further make it clear that the respondent No.4 is free to examine all other aspects regarding the eligibility of the petitioner at the relevant time while considering the claim of the petitioner for being appointed against the vacant post on its own merits and in accordance with law. 5. Petition disposed of with the above terms. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 6 WP9453.10