FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3176 OF 2011 "Rajendra Digambar Gaike Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Anil P. Basarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Umesh V. Jawalikar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 11TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [ D.B. BHOSALE,J] :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 3] The petitioner has challenged the oral communication dated 23/3/2011, whereby, he was informed that he had not been selected for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant, (for short “CEA”.) 4] The petitioner had applied for the said post in response to the advertisement dated 9/2/2011. At the time of applying for the post, he was holding one year Diploma in Construction Supervisor, which he did after passing SSC examination. The petitioner claims that he fulfills all the conditions for his appointment as CEA. In other words, the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3176 OF 2011 "Rajendra Digambar Gaike Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 petitioner claims that he was eligible to be appointed as CEA. Admittedly, the petitioner was held to be eligible and was placed in the select list. However, the list of selected candidates placed on record by respondent No.2 shows that he was not given appointment on the ground that he does not possess the required educational qualification. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement was SSC and Diploma in the courses mentioned therein. 5] Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2, across the bar, informed the court that the selection committee, with a view to short list the candidates, selected only those candidates, who possess 2 years diploma course in the subjects prescribed, for appointment and , therefore, the petitioner was not selected. However, he did not dispute that the petitioner was the only candidate from the NT(B) category and that he possesses the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. 6] In para.4 to 6 of the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2, they have stated as under :- “4) As per the requirement the selection committee was constituted for holding interviews and selection. The selection committee after deliberations found candidates having two year diploma course only eligible as per the educational qualification FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3176 OF 2011 "Rajendra Digambar Gaike Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 advertised. 5). The petitioner in present writ petition holds one year diploma and he does not fulfill the basic educational qualification criteria. 6) In all this process the selection is made on purely merit basis and it is without any intention to deprive any one.” 7] Though, in the reply affidavit, it is mentioned that the candidates having two years Diploma course only are eligible as per the educational qualification advertised, Mr. Deshpande fairly submitted that the advertisement does not make mention of two year Diploma course. 8] From bare perusal of the reply affidavit, it is clear that the only ground on which petitioner was denied appointment was, that he was not holding 2 years Diploma Course. 9] In the present case, the petitioner was the only candidate belonging to NT(B) category and indubitably, one post was reserved for this category. There is no dispute that the petitioner holds the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. However, he was denied appointment on the ground that he did not possess 2 year Diploma Course. There was no such condition mentioned in the advertisement. It appears that the selection committee while short listing put that as a FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3176 OF 2011 "Rajendra Digambar Gaike Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 condition for selection. The decision taken by the Selection Committee modifying the condition in respect of qualification for short-listing is understandable. However, denying the appointment on this ground , in our opinion, is unsustainable, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner was the only candidate belonging to this category and was held to be eligible for appointment on the said post and that he possesses the qualification, that was mentioned in the advertisement. 9] In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (D) and (F). Rule made absolute accordingly, with no orders as to costs. [S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/-