wp4917.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2009 Pushpa d/o Bhagwan Plave (Pushpa w/o Dilipkumar Khedkar), R/o-N-9, Mhada Colony, Raigad Nagar, Hose No.333, R-26, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Shankar s/o Shamrao Patange, R/o-House No.193, Jijamata Colony, 13th Housing Scheme, Jai Bhavani Nagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad, 2) The Commissioner of Transport, Maharashtra State, Office at Administrative Building, 4th Floor, Government Colony Wandre (East), Mumbai-400 051, 3) The Chairman/ Secretary of Selection Committee, Through The Commissioner of Transport, Maharashtra State, Office at Administrative Building, 4th Floor, Government Colony, Wandre (East), Mumbai-400 051, 4) The Regional Transport Officer, Office of R.T.O., Station Road, Aurangabad, wp4917.09 2 5) The Secretary, School Education and Sport Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Extension Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. Rajendra Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. G.M. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5417 OF 2009 Shankar s/o Shamrao Patange, R/o-House No.193, Jijamata Colony, 13th Housing Scheme, Jai Bhavani Nagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad, ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Commissioner of Transport, Maharashtra State, Office at Administrative Building, 4th Floor, Government Colony Wandre (E), Mumbai-400 051. 2) The Chairman/ Secretary of Selection Committee, Through The Commissioner of Transport, Maharashtra State, Office at Administrative Building, 4th Floor, Government Colony, Wandre (E), Mumbai-400 051, wp4917.09 3 3) Regional Transport Officer, Office of R.T.O., Station Road, Aurangabad, 4) Pushpa d/o Bhagwan Plave R/o-N-9, MHADA Colony, Raigadh Nagar, Hose No.333, R-26, CIDCO, Aurangabad, 5) The Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Extension Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. G.M. Jadhav Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Shri. Rajendra Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. wp4917.09 4 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4917 of 2009 i.e. Pushpa Bhagwan Palve was Respondent in Original Application No.594 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5417 of 2009 - Shankar Shamrao Patange. Both the Petitioners participated in the selection process undertaken for appointment of clerk-cum-typist. The advertisement was issued by the Regional Transport Office, State of Maharashtra. Written test was conducted by the department. Both the Petitioners participated in the written test. According to them, they got through the written test and they were orally interviewed. Pushpa Bhagwan Palve, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4917 of 2009 was selected and was accordingly appointed on 9th July, 2008. On the next day i.e. 10th July, 2008 the Petitioner Pushpa joined services. In the month of September 2008, Shri. Shankar Shamrao Patange, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5417 of 2009 filed Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. wp4917.09 5 By an order dated 8th July, 2009, the learned Members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, disposed of the Original Application No. 594 of 2008. Both the Petitioners being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order, filed present Writ Petitions. 3. By an order dated 17th August, 2010 passed by this Court, the Director, Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra State, Pune was asked to verify the certificates produced by both the Petitioners, its authenticity, correctness and eligibility and was directed to forward the report to this Court. Accordingly, the Director, Sports and Youth Services, forwarded the report dated 7th October, 2010. The Director opined that in the light of the Government Resolutions dated 30th April 2005, 21st June 2006, 18th November 2006, 6th May 2008 and 14th July 2009, the certificates were verified and it was found that the Petitioner Shankar Shamrao Patange satisfies the eligibility wp4917.09 6 conditions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the reply filed and report submitted by the Director. 5. Shri. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Pushpa in Writ Petition No.4917 of 2009 submits that the certificate produced by the Petitioner Pushpa satisfies the required conditions. The certificate produced by the Petitioner Pushpa shows that she had participated in soft ball championship, 2001. The Petitioner Pushpa got through the written test and oral interview and was appointed. The counsel submits that the Director, in his report, failed to opine clearly as to why the Petitioner does not satisfy the conditions of eligibility in accordance with the State policy. 6. Shri. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing wp4917.09 7 for Petitioner Shankar in Writ Petition No.5417 of 2009, submits that the certificate submitted by the Petitioner Pushpa does not satisfy the basic eligibility criteria as mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005. The sports should have been organized by the State Level Organization, which is affiliated to Maharashtra Olympic Association. 7. Shri. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5417 of 2009, submits that the Petitioner Shankar was eligible to be considered and appointed as a clerk. The Petitioner participated in the sports which were organized by Parbhani District Fencing Association, which functions under the Maharashtra State Fencing Association, which is affiliated to Maharashtra Olympic Association. Therefore, it should be practically presumed that the sports in which the Petitioner Shankar participated, were held by the organization which wp4917.09 8 was affiliated to Maharashtra Olympic Association. In respect of non submission of Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, the learned counsel submits that Government Resolution requiring submission of Non Creamy Layer Certificate was issued on 11th July, 2008, much after the Petitioner participated in the selection process. The said Government Resolution is not applicable to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that as there was no provision to submit Non Creamy Layer Certificate under the said Government Resolution for open sports person, the Petitioner did not produce the same. 8. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal, reply filed by the Respondents, relevant documents placed on record and the certificates issued in favour of the Petitioners. 9. In case of Pushpa - Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4917 of 2009, we find that she does wp4917.09 9 not satisfy the eligibility conditions in respect of participation in the sports, which were organized by the organization as mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005. Even though the Director's report submitted before this Court consequent to the order passed by this Court, does not clearly answer the issue, we have gone through the relevant Government Resolutions and the essential conditions which requires a sports person to submit a certificate for the purposes of securing employment. The Petitioner Pushpa suffers from one more deficiency, i. e. she failed to secure first, second or third rank, in the sports in which she participated. 10. In case of Shankar - Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5417 of 2009, we find same deficiency to the effect that the sports which were organized by Parbhani District Fencing Association, were not organized by an organization which was a State level organization, affiliated to Maharashtra wp4917.09 10 Olympic Association. The Petitioner - Shankar has even not submitted Non Creamy Layer Certificate, which was the condition in the advertisement. 11. The Tribunal considered all the relevant issues in the context of the material placed before it. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Tribunal, for exercising our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. There is no merit in both the Writ Petitions. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp4917.09