Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 694 (BOM)

Anup v. State of Maharashtra

2023-03-10

ROHIT B.DEO, V.V.JOSHI

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the refusal of the respondents 2 and 3 to issue the appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer Group-D from the sports quota. 3. The respondent 2 published an advertisement for direct appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer Group-C and Junior Engineer Group-D at their official website on 17/10/2016, wherein 5% reservation was provided under sport quota. As per Government Resolution dtd. 30/4/2005, for the post of Junior Engineer, a person who individually or with team has secured 1st, 2nd and 3rd position or won gold, silver or bronze medal in State, National and International competition is eligible to apply and the selection is subject to receiving validity report of the certificates of the candidate from respondent 4. The petitioner has educational qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and has also played various games such as Basketball, Tug of War and Sepak-Takaraw on District and State Level Competition in which the petitioner has secured 2nd position in Maharashtra State Sepak-Takaraw Championship 2013-14 and also the winner of Inter Zonal Sports Meet 2008-2009 in Basket Ball. The name of the petitioner was published in select list and his position was at Serial No.20 in Select List (Open) from sport quota. The respondent 2 issued letter on 2/1/2018 to the respondent 5 to submit validity report regarding sport certificate of the 3 selected candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer Group -C and 1 candidate Junior Engineer Group-D. Accordingly, the respondent 5 submitted validity report regarding sport certificate of the petitioner to the respondent 2 on 9/10/2018 and specifically submitted that petitioner's validity certificate was issued on 31/7/2018 and therefore, there is no objection to appoint petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer. 4. The petitioner contends that although selected for the post of Junior Engineer Group- D from sport quota, however, the respondent 2 did not issue appointment order to the petitioner, hence the petitioner, submitted a representation. On 10/4/2019, respondent 3 replied to the representation of petitioner stating that the respondent 3 has not received validity report from respondent 5 and therefore, appointment order for the post of Junior Engineer Group-D from the sport quota is not issued. 5. On 10/4/2019, respondent 3 replied to the representation of petitioner stating that the respondent 3 has not received validity report from respondent 5 and therefore, appointment order for the post of Junior Engineer Group-D from the sport quota is not issued. 5. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed their reply stating that as per the advertisement, the posts were for the parallel reservation [XXXXXXXX] under point 6 and it has been categorically mentioned that Sport Certificate submitted by the candidate shall be invariably verified by the concerned Director, Sports and Youth Services and only after verification of such certificate the candidate will get the appointment letter. 6. The petitioner in his application claimed that he has obtained 1st rank/Gold Medal in the sports participated by him at the State Level. As per the documents produced thereto at the time of filing of application, the petitioner has mentioned the names of the sports as Basketball and Tug-of-War. On verification, it appears that the petitioner has participated in Inter Zonal Sports Meet 2008-2009 and the Tug-of-War certificate submitted by him was also for Inter District Level Sports and hence the same does not meet the criteria of Meritorious Sports candidate as per the advertisement. 7. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer from Mechanical Stream under the sport quota and therefore the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the provisional select list, which was subject to the verification of documents. The petitioner was called for documents verification, and the petitioner has submitted the documents of his qualification, including the certificates of 'Basketball' and 'Tug-of-War" sports. The above certificates of sports were subjected to verification. After verification of the said documents, the Eligible and not Eligible list was published. At the time of filing online application as well as at the time of document verification, the petitioner has not submitted any certificate pertaining to sport 'Sepak-Takraw' and therefore, the respondent has not asked for verification of the certificate of 'Sepak-Takraw'. Later on, the petitioner approached the respondents and submitted the certificate of 'Sepak-Takraw' along with the verification report. It is specifically mentioned that the information provided by the candidate at the time of applying for the post shall be deemed to be correct and it must have been proved by the candidate. Later on, the petitioner approached the respondents and submitted the certificate of 'Sepak-Takraw' along with the verification report. It is specifically mentioned that the information provided by the candidate at the time of applying for the post shall be deemed to be correct and it must have been proved by the candidate. If the candidate fails to prove the claim made in the application, then his candidature shall be cancelled. Since, the petitioner has submitted the certificates of the 'Basketball' and 'Tug-of-War', therefore, only those categories of sports were considered by the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted the certificate of 'Sepak-Tackraw' along with the verification report, however since said certificate was not submitted at the verification stage, therefore, it was not considered by the respondents. The petitioner has not taken any efforts to submit the verified certificate of 'Basketball' or Tug-of-War'. As the petitioner has failed to submit the certificate about 'Basketball' or 'Tug-of-War', his candidature was cancelled for not providing the correct information. As he failed to comply with the conditions, the respondents 2 and 3 stated that he is not eligible for the appointment in sports quota. 8. We have heard both the learned Counsel. 9. The petitioner has applied for appointment as Junior Engineer Group-D from sports quota. At that time, he has given the names of sports as 'Basketball' and 'Tug-of-War'. On verification of the said certificates, the respondents found that for Tug-of-War it was certificate for participation in zonal competition. The Basketball certificate was also for Zonal. At that time, he had not given the name of the sport Sepak-Takraw and thereafter, while he submitted the certificate, the same is not considered by the respondents and rightly so. The petitioner failed to adhere to the procedure for applying for the posts of sports as per Clause 6 in advertisement and he has not given the correct information as he has not received any 1st, 2nd or 3rd rank or Gold Medal in the said sports and the petitioner has subsequently submitted the certificate about Sepak-Takraw, which can not be considered as it was not produced by him for verification to the respondents. As the petitioner has not complied with the conditions for appointment from the sports quota, the petitioner is not entitled for the service from said quota. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. 10. Rule is discharged.