AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3278 OF 2008 Shri Nilesh Prakash Chavan .... Petitioner Vs. 1 The State of Maharashtra ) 2 Satara Zilla Parishad, Satara ) 3 The Collector, Satara. ) 4 The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Transport Corporation, Satara at Satara. ) ) ) ..... Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Behre, AGP for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 30TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner claims to be the grandson of one Dnyanu Babu Chavan. Dnyanu Babu Chavan was a freedom fighter. According to the petitioner, Dnyanu Babu Chavan had participated in the freedom struggle. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1989, Dnyanu Babu Chavan nominated his son Pralhad Chavan for the purposes of public employment. In the year 1991, the AJN 2 Maharasthra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the MSRTC”) started recruitment process. An advertisement was issued in newspapers. Admittedly, there was no reservation for freedom fighters. An application was made by Pralhad Chavan for appointment to the post of conductor. In that application, he stated that he was the son of a freedom fighter. Pralhad Chavan was selected. The case of the petitioner is that Pralhad Chavan was appointed on merits as there was no reservation for relatives of freedom fighter. On 13/6/1998, the grandfather - Dnyanu Babu Chavan made an application to the Tahsildar, Khatav stating that his son Pralhad Chavan was appointed on merits in direct recruitment and, therefore, his nomination be cancelled. Similarly, application was also made to the District Collector. That application is dated 7/11/1998. Dnyanu Babu Chavan expired on 8/6/2002. On 7/3/2006, widow of Dnyanu Babu Chavan nominated the petitioner for the purpose of employment as being the grandson of freedom fighter Dnyanu Babu Chavan. Necessary procedure was then followed and a nomination certificate came to be issued in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of that certificate, the petitioner made an application for the post of Extension Officer (Agriculture) pursuant to the advertisement AJN 3 issued by respondent 2 in the newspaper. The petitioner was called for written test and for oral interview. The petitioner passed in both and was selected in July, 2006. 2. It appears that one Vikas Baburao Chavan addressed complaint dated 12/7/2006 to the President of Maharashtra State Freedom Fighter' Sanghatana, Satara, stating inter alia that Pralhad Chavan, the son of Dnyanu Babu Chavan was already nominated by the freedom fighter - Dnyanu Babu Chavan and pursuant thereto, he was employed in the MSRTC. It was stated in the complaint that a freedom fighter cannot nominate two persons for public employment and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been selected by respondent 2. Pursuant to this complaint, the District Collector, cancelled the nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order. He preferred Writ Petition No.3489 of 2007 in this court. This court remanded the matter to the District Collector as the petitioner was not heard. On remand, the petitioner submitted his written representation. That written representation was considered. The petitioner was given personal hearing and a fresh order came to be passed on 7/1/2008 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the AJN 4 said order, the petitioner has approached this court. 3. We have heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the uncle of the petitioner – Pralhad Chavan was selected by the MSRTC on merits. In the advertisement, pursuant to which he had applied for the said post, there was no reservation for freedom fighter. Hence, he could not have been appointed on the basis that he was a freedom fighter's son and was nominated by the freedom fighter. This is, therefore, not a case where two persons are nominated by the freedom fighter. Mr. Bandiwadekar urged that, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be cancelled. 4. Mr. Behre, learned AGP appearing for the State has drawn our attention to the affidavit in reply filed by Reshma Rajesh Mali, Sub-Divisional Officer, Phaltan Division, Phaltan. He submitted that though there was no reservation for a freedom fighter's relatives in the advertisement issued by the MSRTC, admittedly, Pralhad Chavan, the uncle of the petitioner did state in his application that he was the son of a freedom fighter and, in fact, he was given 10% extra marks on that basis. Pralhad Chavan is, AJN 5 therefore, appointed after taking into consideration that he was the son of a freedom fighter. In view of this, the petitioner cannot seek employment on the same ground. His nomination is, therefore, rightly cancelled. 5. We have perused the affidavit filed by Reshma Rajesh Mali. We may quote relevant portion of the said affidavit. “8. I submit that the Respondent No.3 Collector, Satara asked Sub-Divisional Officer, Phaltan to enquire whether Petitioner' s uncle was appointed by Respondent No.4 S.T. Department as a Freedom Fighter nominee. This office called for report and documents from Respondent No.4 S.T. Department and Respondent No.4 submitted his report No.raap/vinisa/aastha/5285 dated 19/9/2006 attached as Annexure-C herewith stating that Petitioners uncle Shri P.D. Chavan has mentioned that he is a Freedom Fighters son in the column of special information in his application dated 15.3.1990 given to Respondent No.4 for the post of conductor. Therefore it was mentioned the candidate was Freedom Fighters son in the docket kept before the Selection Committee. As per the policy of S.T. Dept. Freedom Fighters nominee is given 10% extra marks of the marks received by the candidate in interview and thereafter selection is made on the basis of total marks. By this procedure, two candidates including Petitioner' s uncle was selected for the post of conductor. Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner' s uncle had taken benefit of being a Freedom Fighter' s nominee while securing AJN 6 the job with Respondent No.4. A report to that effect was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phaltan on 19.9.2006. I say that Respondent No.4 has also given report to Tahasildar, Khatav vide No.raap/vinisa/aastha/vahak-1/4378 dated 14.8.2006 that the Petitioner' s uncle Shri P.D. Chavan was appointed on the post of conductor in 1991 being a Freedom Fighter' s son as per the available office records. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D to this Reply is a copy of the said report.” 6. Undoubtedly, therefore, the fact that Pralhad Chavan is the son of a freedom fighter was taken into account by the MSRTC. As per Government Resolutions quoted in the Affidavit of Reshma Mali, a freedom fighter can nominate only one relative once for getting benefit of Government service. In view of the above, we find no fault with the cancellation of the nomination of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]