1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.3380 of 2008 (Anita d/o. Daulat Shinde .vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Buldana and Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 01, 2008. Heard Mr.R.S.Parsodkar, Adv. for Petitioner and Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv. for Respondent No.5. This petition is directed against the judgment dt. 24.7.2008 passed by the Grievance Committee whereby the appeal filed by Ku. Usha Haribhau Khedekar/respondent no.5 came to be partly allowed and it is held that Ku. Usha Khedekar being senior in the seniority list of the project affected persons maintained by the concerned Collector is eligible to be appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak'. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the decision of the 2 Grievance Committee is inconsistent with the Government Circular dated 13th September, 2000, particularly, the provisions of Clause (5) of the said Circular which reads thus : “ Appointing Authority and Collector should take steps to appoint the eligible project affected persons in view of the waiting list of project affected persons and in accordance with the recruitment rules.” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has secured more marks in B.Ed. examination than respondent no.5, hence, petitioner was more meritorious than respondent no.5 and therefore, was more qualified for the post of Shikshan Sevak. It is contended that even, as per the clause (5) of the Circular referred to hereinabove, though the appointment of Shikshan Sevak is required to be made on the basis of seniority shown in the list of Project Affected Persons, the same should be in accordance with the recruitment rules. It is further contended that, so far as the procedure of recruitment of Shikshan Sevaks is concerned, it is 3 mentioned in the Government Circular dt,. 20.5.2004 that the candidate who has secured more marks in the B.Ed. examination than others, should be given preference in the appointment of Shikshan Sevaks. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured more marks in her B.Ed. examination than the respondent no.5 and hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Grievance Committee cannot be sustained in law. Counsel for the respondent no.5 has supported the impugned order. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the relevant circular issued by the State of Maharashtra as well as the impugned order. Perusal of the Circular dated 13th September, 2000, particularly clause (3) clearly stipulates that the Collector Office is required to recommend project affected candidates as per seniority in the list available with him, to the appointing Authority. Similarly, clause (5) of the said Circular 4 contemplates that the appointing Authority is required to consider eligibility of such project affected candidates on the basis of their seniority as well as in accordance with the recruitment rules. It is, therefore, evident that the candidate who is shown senior in the seniority list of the project affected candidates maintained by the Collector is a primary eligibility. However, such candidate must also possess the eligibility as per the recruitment rules/procedure. In the instant case, respondent no.5 undoubtedly was shown senior to the petitioner in the list of project affected candidates and respondent no.5 being otherwise eligible as per the recruitment procedure mentioned in the Government Circular dt.20.5.2004, was considered to be eligible for appointment as Shikshan Sevak by the Grievance Committee and in our view, rightly so. The contention of petitioner that the criteria to appoint Shikshan Sevaks is only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in their B.Ed. examination without considering seniority of the candidates in the list of project affected persons, for the reason stated 5 hereinabove, is misconceived and therefore, rejected. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj