Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2020
RUKMINI SURYABHAN BELE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.S.J.Solanke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.R.Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
S.G. MEHARE, JJ)
DATE : JULY 6, 2021
PER COURT :
1. Final disposal notices are served on the respondents.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clauses “B”
and “C” as under :-
“B. By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions the letter/
order dated 20.08.2020 issued by respondent No.1 i.e. the
Chairman, District Integrated Health and Family Welfare
Society and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
C. By issuing appropriate Writ, order or directions the
respondent No.1. i.e. the Chairman, District Integrated
Health and Family Welfare Society and the Chief Executive
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
- 2 -
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad may
kindly be directed to issue appointment order on the post of
Taluka Samuh Sanghatak in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. An advertisement
was published by respondent No.2/Chairman, District Integrated
Health and Family Welfare Society and the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad on 03.11.2019
declaring the selection process for filling in various posts, including
the post of a “Taluka Samuh Sanghatak” (Taluka Group Co-ordinator)
under the National Health Mission in Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
purely on contract basis for 11 months. Only one post was available
for the Taluka Group Co-ordinator, which is at issue in this petition.
4. The petitioner has based this petition on the select list for the
post of Taluka Group Co-ordinator dated 13/07/2020 which was
published by respondent No.2 showing the petitioner at Sr.No.1 on
the strength of her aggregate marks being 70.45. This score included
70% of the final year graduation course marks, which rule was
universally made applicable to all the candidates while computing
their scores.
5. On 21/07/2020, the petitioner appeared before the competent
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
- 3 -
committee with necessary documents, which was a condition to be
fulfilled for verification of all relevant documents before an
appointment order could be issued. By the impugned communication
dated 20/08/2020, respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner that her
final year graduation marks are actually 58.22% as per the marks
memo and not 86.36%, which was erroneously recorded while
calculating her aggregate score in the selection process. Apparently,
on account of the correction made by respondent No.2 in the
erroneously calculated aggregate score, the petitioner did not retain
serial number 1 in the select list.
6. Contention of the petitioner is that she was not aware about
the manner of calculating the aggregate score before preparation of
the select list. As she was not aware of the criteria for calculating
such aggregate score, her rank at Sr.No.1 in the select list, though
based on an incorrect noting of her final year marks as 86.36%, must
be retained. It is however conceded that the petitioner had not
scored 86.36% in her final year graduation and has passed in second
class scoring 58.22%.
7. The learned Advocate representing respondent No.2 relies upon
the affidavit in reply filed by the said authority. Paragraph No.3 is
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
- 4 -
pointed out from the said affidavit to indicate that the final year
graduation marks of the petitioner, while making the data entry,
were erroneously recorded as 86.36%. The manner of considering the
graduation score was to draw 70% of the Final Year marks scored by a
candidate. For example, if a candidate scored 60% marks, 70% of
the said marks would be 42%, to be added to her score in the
interviews. This was based on a circular dated 20/04/2020. The said
rule was made applicable to all the candidates without an exception.
8. He further submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner
had never scored 86.36% marks in her final year of graduation and if
respondent No.2 has committed a mistake of making a wrong data
entry of the said marks, when she had actually scored 58.22%, the
said mistake was cured/rectified by respondent No.2 before it
became too late. The mistake was corrected and immediately
communicated to the petitioner vide the impugned communication
dated 20/08/2020. She was not issued with an appointment order by
then as the verification of the documents was performed on
21/07/2020 and respondent No.2 realized it's mistake in good time.
9. In our view, there is no dispute in so far as the crystallized
position of Law that mere selection does not give a right to
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
- 5 -
appointment and no indefeasible right is created merely because a
candidate is in the select list. Notwithstanding the said position, the
petitioner can not dispute that she had scored 58.22% marks in her
final year of graduation. Record reveals that her aggregate score,
while placing her at Sr.No.1 in the select list for "Taluka Group Co-
ordinator", was on an erroneous calculation by taking into account
her final year graduation score to be 86.36%.
10. We do not find that respondent No.2 has unilaterally
introduced a new rule only to cause prejudice to the petitioner or a
different set of selection criteria was made applicable only to the
petitioner by way of an exception. The selection criteria that was
followed by respondent No.2 was universally made applicable to all
the applicants. There is no allegation of nepotism or bias or
prejudice or personal animosity between respondent No.2 and the
petitioner.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition
and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
( S.G. MEHARE,J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2020
RUKMINI SURYABHAN BELE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.S.J.Solanke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.R.Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
S.G. MEHARE, JJ)
DATE : JULY 6, 2021
PER COURT :
1. Final disposal notices are served on the respondents.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clauses “B”
and “C” as under :-
“B. By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions the letter/
order dated 20.08.2020 issued by respondent No.1 i.e. the
Chairman, District Integrated Health and Family Welfare
Society and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
C. By issuing appropriate Writ, order or directions the
respondent No.1. i.e. the Chairman, District Integrated
Health and Family Welfare Society and the Chief Executive
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
- 2 -
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad may
kindly be directed to issue appointment order on the post of
Taluka Samuh Sanghatak in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. An advertisement
was published by respondent No.2/Chairman, District Integrated
Health and Family Welfare Society and the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad on 03.11.2019
declaring the selection process for filling in various posts, including
the post of a “Taluka Samuh Sanghatak” (Taluka Group Co-ordinator)
under the National Health Mission in Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
purely on contract basis for 11 months. Only one post was available
for the Taluka Group Co-ordinator, which is at issue in this petition.
4. The petitioner has based this petition on the select list for the
post of Taluka Group Co-ordinator dated 13/07/2020 which was
published by respondent No.2 showing the petitioner at Sr.No.1 on
the strength of her aggregate marks being 70.45. This score included
70% of the final year graduation course marks, which rule was
universally made applicable to all the candidates while computing
their scores.
5. On 21/07/2020, the petitioner appeared before the competent
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
- 3 -
committee with necessary documents, which was a condition to be
fulfilled for verification of all relevant documents before an
appointment order could be issued. By the impugned communication
dated 20/08/2020, respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner that her
final year graduation marks are actually 58.22% as per the marks
memo and not 86.36%, which was erroneously recorded while
calculating her aggregate score in the selection process. Apparently,
on account of the correction made by respondent No.2 in the
erroneously calculated aggregate score, the petitioner did not retain
serial number 1 in the select list.
6. Contention of the petitioner is that she was not aware about
the manner of calculating the aggregate score before preparation of
the select list. As she was not aware of the criteria for calculating
such aggregate score, her rank at Sr.No.1 in the select list, though
based on an incorrect noting of her final year marks as 86.36%, must
be retained. It is however conceded that the petitioner had not
scored 86.36% in her final year graduation and has passed in second
class scoring 58.22%.
7. The learned Advocate representing respondent No.2 relies upon
the affidavit in reply filed by the said authority. Paragraph No.3 is
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
- 4 -
pointed out from the said affidavit to indicate that the final year
graduation marks of the petitioner, while making the data entry,
were erroneously recorded as 86.36%. The manner of considering the
graduation score was to draw 70% of the Final Year marks scored by a
candidate. For example, if a candidate scored 60% marks, 70% of
the said marks would be 42%, to be added to her score in the
interviews. This was based on a circular dated 20/04/2020. The said
rule was made applicable to all the candidates without an exception.
8. He further submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner
had never scored 86.36% marks in her final year of graduation and if
respondent No.2 has committed a mistake of making a wrong data
entry of the said marks, when she had actually scored 58.22%, the
said mistake was cured/rectified by respondent No.2 before it
became too late. The mistake was corrected and immediately
communicated to the petitioner vide the impugned communication
dated 20/08/2020. She was not issued with an appointment order by
then as the verification of the documents was performed on
21/07/2020 and respondent No.2 realized it's mistake in good time.
9. In our view, there is no dispute in so far as the crystallized
position of Law that mere selection does not give a right to
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::
- 5 -
appointment and no indefeasible right is created merely because a
candidate is in the select list. Notwithstanding the said position, the
petitioner can not dispute that she had scored 58.22% marks in her
final year of graduation. Record reveals that her aggregate score,
while placing her at Sr.No.1 in the select list for "Taluka Group Co-
ordinator", was on an erroneous calculation by taking into account
her final year graduation score to be 86.36%.
10. We do not find that respondent No.2 has unilaterally
introduced a new rule only to cause prejudice to the petitioner or a
different set of selection criteria was made applicable only to the
petitioner by way of an exception. The selection criteria that was
followed by respondent No.2 was universally made applicable to all
the applicants. There is no allegation of nepotism or bias or
prejudice or personal animosity between respondent No.2 and the
petitioner.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition
and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
( S.G. MEHARE,J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
khs/July 2021/6445
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:53 :::