SMT. SUVARNA BHIMAJI THINGLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY , REVENUE DEPT. AND ORS

 Ingale                                               8-wp-10404-19.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               WRIT PETITION NO. 10404 OF 2019

Smt. Suvarna Bhimaji Thigle
Age : 36 years
Occu: Nil.
R/at : 2368, Behind Zilla Parishad School
Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune                         … Petitioner
      Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary to the Government
Revenue Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai

2. The Secretary,
General Administrative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai

3. Collector of Pune                          .… Respondent

                             ****
Mr. Rushikesh G. Bhagat i/b Khandeparkar & Associates, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent-State.

                              ****
                             CORAM :    M.S.KARNIK &
                                        S.M.MODAK, JJ.

                               DATE :   02nd FEBRUARY 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J. ) :


1.           Heard Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Ms. Salunkhe, learned AGP appearing for the respondent-

State.


                              1
 Ingale                                                  8-wp-10404-19.odt



2.            The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short),

dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.          The

matter pertains to the appointment of the petitioner in Group C

(Class III) cadre under the Project Affected Persons category (‘PAP’,

for short).     Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had sought a

direction to the respondents to appoint her in a Group C (Class III)

cadre under the PAP category by giving priority to her whenever a

job opportunity is available in the government department. It was

the case of the petitioner that the PAPs should have been regarded

as a separate and distinct category for the purpose of selection

process.

3.            It is submitted that an error has been committed by the

respondents in equating the petitioner, a PAP candidate, with all

those who were competing under the open category. Our attention

is invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to the Government

Resolution (‘GR’, for short) dated 27/10/2009 which provides

reservation of 5% for PAPs.

4.            Pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2015

for various posts, the petitioner duly applied. She appeared for the



                                2
 Ingale                                                 8-wp-10404-19.odt



written examination on 04/10/2015 for clerk-cum-typist post. The

results were declared on 11/03/2016. As per the provisions of GR

dated 27/10/2009, although there is a reservation of 5% for the

PAPs, their selection has to be through open competition. The GR

provides that PAPs cannot be appointed without following the

prescribed procedure of issuing of an advertisement, conduct of

the examination and merit-wise selection. The petitioner scored

50 marks out of 200 in the said examination. The passing criteria

for the said examination was 90 marks out of 200. The petitioner

failed in the said examination, hence, she was held not eligible for

the said post.

5.          Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point

out that if 5% reservation is prescribed for PAPs, it would stand to

reason that PAPs have to be treated differently from the other

categories and that a separate passing criteria for the PAPs should

have been prescribed. It is submitted that prescribing the same

passing criteria for PAPs as well as other candidates from the open

category, would amount to treating unequals equally and hence,

such a criteria is unreasonable and arbitrary.   Learned counsel for

the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of



                               3
    Ingale                                                            8-wp-10404-19.odt



Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and

ors1 in support of his submissions.

6.               Learned AGP on the other hand invited our attention

to the findings of the Tribunal in support of her submissions.

7.               Before we proceed to consider the submissions, it

would be pertinent to reproduce some of the relevant observations

of full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and anr.

(supra), paragraphs 38 to 41 reads thus :

             “38. Perusal of section 16 of the said Act would also reveal that an
             eligible affected person is also entitled to get land acquired by the
             State Government under section 14 with the occupancy status held
             by such a project affected person earlier. It can thus be seen that an
             affected person does not come on the roads on the execution of the
             projects. Under section 16 of the said Act, a duty is cast upon the
             State Government for complete rehabilitation of the project affected
             persons. Not only this, but under section 16, a person whose land
             has been acquired for the project, is also entitled to get land in the
             benefited zone on the conditions stipulated under section 16. It
             would thus be difficult to appreciate the contention of Mr. Mantri,
             learned Counsel, that a person whose name appears in the register
             maintained by the Collector, must be given an appointment on the
             basis of seniority in the register, without calling him for interview or
             competing with others.

             39. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the directions
             given by the Division Bench in Sunil's Case, that the project affected
             persons should be appointed strictly according to the seniority list
             maintained by the Collector and that, they are not required to
             compete between themselves and that they are entitled to be
             appointed without any competitive examinations, are inconsistent
             with the mandate of the Constitution of India under Articles 14 and
             16. We find, that the same is also not permissible under the said Act
             and the relevant Government Resolutions. As we have already held,
             the quota of 5% fixed for project affected persons is nothing but a

1    2009(4) Mh.L.J. 961


                                        4
Ingale                                                           8-wp-10404-19.odt



         horizontal reservation provided for project affected persons and the
         candidates from that category will have to compete amongst
         themselves under the recruitment rules and the best amongst them
         would be entitled to be appointed.

         40. Now, let us consider whether it is necessary for publishing an
         advertisement, calling applications from candidates belonging to
         project affected person, while filling up vacancies reserved for the
         said category. The Apex Court, in the case of Excise Superintendent,
         Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A P, vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and
         others, 1996 AIR SCW 3979 has considered the requirement of
         calling applications by advertisement. It has been observed thus:
                 "Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the
                 view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable
                 which would be consistent with the principles of fair-play,
                 justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that
                 many a candidate are unable to have the names sponsored,
                 though their names are either registered or are waiting to be
                 registered in the employment exchange, with the result that
                 the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the
                 candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the
                 employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a
                 deserving candidate are deprived of the right to be considered
                 for appointment to a post under the State. Better view
                 appears to be that it should be mandatory for the
                 requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the
                 employment exchange, and employment exchange should
                 sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning
                 Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and
                 reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate
                 Department or undertaking or establishment, should call for
                 the names by publication in the newspapers having wider
                 circulation and also display on their office notice boards or
                 announce on radio, television and employment news-
                 bulleltins, and then consider the cases of all the candidates
                 who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play
                 would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter
                 of employment would be available to all eligible candidates."

         41. No doubt, that under the Government Circulars, the Collectors
         are also required to sponsor the names of eligible candidates to the
         recruitment authority. However, since we have already held
         hereinabove, that the district-wise reservation is not permissible
         under the Constitution, the candidates from the other districts, who
         are project affected persons, would also be entitled to compete with
         the candidates who are sponsored by the Collector. In the absence of



                                   5
 Ingale                                                          8-wp-10404-19.odt



          the advertisement, it will not be possible for them to get knowledge
          about recruitment process initiated in the areas beyond their
          district. We, therefore, find that in order to ensure the equality of
          opportunity which is guaranteed in the matter of employment under
          Article 16 of the Constitution, it would be necessary that the posts
          reserved for project affected persons are advertised so that all the
          eligible candidates can submit their applications and get an
          opportunity to compete with others in their category.”

8.            We find that the GR dated 27/10/2009 provides for a

reservation of 5% for PAPs. No doubt GR provides that the PAP is

entitled for getting an employment but the same is subject to the

conditions stipulated in the GR dated 27/10/2009. The conditions

are not unreasonable or arbitrary as can be seen from the decision

of the Full Bench above referred.

9.            We find in the present case that the advertisement was

duly issued wherein 5% of the posts were reserved for the PAPs.

The petitioner participated in the selection process. The Petitioner

did not challenge any of the conditions of advertisement. One of

the condition was of obtaining 90 marks out of 200 as the passing

criteria. Having appeared for the written examination, the

petitioner obtained 50 marks and therefore was not eligible. It is

after the results were declared that the petitioner comes out they

were unfairly equated with the open category candidates in the

matter of prescribing the passing criteria. We do not find that the



                                    6
 Ingale                                                  8-wp-10404-19.odt



criteria prescribed of 90 marks for the PAPs is in any way arbitrary.

The respondents are not depriving the petitioner of the benefit of

reservation. However, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of

such reservation only upon fulfilling the terms and conditions

mentioned in the GR dated 27/10/2009. Prescribing the same

passing criteria for open category candidates and the PAPs does

not amount to hostile discrimination. This is not a case where

unequals are treated equally. It is only upon passing the written

examination, that the petitioner’s case would be considered as

against 5% reservation provided for the PAPs.         It is not the

petitioner’s case that there is any breach of reservation policy

provided to PAPs. The requirement of the petitioner passing the

examination cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary merely

because the passing criteria is the same for the open category

candidates as well as the PAPs. Such a criteria does not fall foul of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10.         We therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with

the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.



(S.M.MODAK, J.)                               (M.S.KARNIK, J.)



                                7