wp5112.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5112 OF 2010 Prashant s/o Sahebrao Salunke, Age-26 years, Occu:Education, R/o-38/2, Ravindra Nagar, Mohadi Road, Near Vaidya Hospital, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Collector, Dhule and Chairman of District Selection Committee, Dhule, 3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule and Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, Dhule, 4) Taluka Health Officer, Taluka Health Squad, Dhule, 5) Taluka Health Officer, Taluka Health Squad, Sakri. ...RESPONDENTS. wp5112.10 2 ... Shri.A.D. Shinde Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.D.S. Bagul Advocate for Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are served. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner belongs to S.T. Category. He applied against an advertisement issued for the post of Junior Assistant (clerk) in Zilla Parishad, Dhule. The Petitioner's name was placed in the wait list. Out of three candidates who were selected, two candidates, namely, Bagul Rajaram Tukaram and Thakur Jagdishchandra Babanrao, did wp5112.10 3 not join, according to the Petitioner. As two posts were vacant, it was necessary for the Zilla Parishad to issue appointment order in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondents failed to discharge their duties and ultimately the Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent Zilla Parishad on 31st July, 2009. The Respondent Zilla Parishad did not consider the application on the ground that the wait list period was over and the Zilla Parishad had appointed certain candidates on compassionate ground. 3. Shri. Shinde, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that still one post of Junior Assistant in the category of S.T., is available. The Petitioner is not at fault and if at all there is any negligence, that is on the part of the officers of the Respondent Zilla Parishad. 4. Shri. Bagul, learned counsel appearing wp5112.10 4 for Respondent Zilla Parishad submits that Zilla Parishad did not receive any report from the concerned Joining Authority in time. The report of non joining of two candidates was received in August, 2009. In this scenario the Zilla Parishad could not take any action to appoint the Petitioner. 5. Shri. Patil, the learned A.G.P. submits that in the light of the policy of the State and clause (10) of the advertisement issued, the Petitioner could have been considered for appointment. 6. We have perused the documents placed on record. We find that the plea raised by the Respondent Zilla Parishad is not sustainable. It is noticed that there is negligence on the part of the Authorities concerned in not intimating the Zilla Parishad in time about non joining of two candidates. It was obligatory for Zilla Parishad wp5112.10 5 officials to verify as to whether the appointed candidates have joined and in absence of their joining, it was necessary for Zilla Parishad to offer the post to the Petitioner. In this process, the Petitioner cannot be said to be at fault and in the light of the spirit of implementation of policy of reservation, the plea raised by the Zilla Parishad could not be an obstacle. The same will defeat the very purpose of reservation, much less when the deserving candidate is already available and is listed in the wait list. In the facts of the case, appointment of the candidates on compassionate ground, could not dis-entitle the Petitioner from consideration. 7. In the facts of the case, we direct the Respondent Zilla Parishad to issue appointment order in favour of the Petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant (clerk), as a candidate belonging to S.T. Category and wait listed candidate. wp5112.10 6 8. The Respondent State Authorities and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule are directed to enquire into the matter and to fix responsibility for the lapses committed by the officers concerned. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT11