1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition NO. 8029 OF 2009 Sandeep Panditrao Rautwad & Others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- With Writ Petition No.8043 Of 2009 Sanjeev s/o Sayalu Buchalwar & Others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Shri. Girish Thigle, for respondent No.4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 16th DECEMBER 2009 2 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri. A.S. Golegaonkar submitted that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribes category. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent – Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited in the month of August 2008, the petitioners applied for the post. It was submitted that in the first select list published by the Company the names of the petitioners were appearing as the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes category. But, according to the petitioners, in the second select list published the names of the petitioners were not shown for want of Caste Validity Certificates and the candidates who secured less marks than the petitioners were shown as selected candidates. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the reported judgments in (1) Madhuri Patil v. Addl 3 Commissioner Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94; (2) Deepak Nawal Chavan v. Competent Authority, 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 370 and a Government Resolution dated 30th August 2006 and contended that in the fact situation, the respondent – Company be directed to appoint the petitioners by obtaining undertakings from the petitioners with time bound schedule for getting the caste validity certificates. 4) The learned Senior Counsel Shri. P.M. Shah appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that there was a specific condition in the advertisement that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes must furnish caste validity certificate at the time of filing application. The recruitment process was undertaken in August 2008 which is already completed. Some of the candidates have been already appointed and the process of appointment is going on. The policy of asking the candidates to produce validity certificate is followed by the respondent – company, according to the Senior Counsel, since last several years. 4 5) Prima facie we find that the respondents could have followed a uniform policy in respect of candidates belonging to reserved classes in matters of submission of validity certificates. But the fact remains that in the advertisement itself, which was published in the month of August 2008, a specific clear condition was mentioned that candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes category shall submit validity certificate along with the application form. Knowing this fully well the petitioners participated in the selection process without production of validity certificates at the time of making applications. There is no dispute that in the first provisional list the names of the petitioners were shown but for want of validity certificates their names could not be shown in the final select list. 6) It was possible for the petitioners to raise this challenge before participation in the selection process which got completed long back. 7) There may be further difficulties with the respondents in case the petitioners are now permitted to be appointed by obtaining certain undertakings in place of 5 the candidates already appointed having less marks than the petitioners or more than the petitioners. It is also possible that some of the candidates having been selected and appointed would loose their place in the select list itself in case it is found that the petitioners have secured more marks than those selected candidates. Viewed from any angle of the matter we find that it would not be reasonable and proper to issue directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioners and persons situated identically like the petitioners who participated in the selection process in all the Divisions of the Company throughout the Maharashtra. We find that, unprecedented situation, which could not be visualized today, could not be created by accepting the requests made by the petitioners. 8) In future, the respondent – Company shall consider this issue of having uniform policy in respect of seeking validity certificates from the reserved categories candidates applying for the posts / or obtaining undertaking. 6 9) We are not inclined to entertain these petitions in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.8029.09