Bombay High Court
NIVRUTI RAMRAO SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered for appointment under the Project Affected Persons quota.
Summary
The petitioner, Nivruti Ramrao Shinde, filed a writ petition seeking appointment under the Project Affected Persons (PAP) reservation quota. Respondent No.2 argued that the petitioner’s mother had already been appointed under the same quota in 1990 and that the scheme permits only one appointment per family. The petitioner contended that he holds a separate PAP certificate issued in 2007, distinct from his mother’s earlier certificate. The Court found merit in the petitioner’s claim, noting that the existence of a PAP certificate for the petitioner establishes his eligibility. It directed the respondent to consider his appointment under the PAP quota, subject to the selection process of a fresh 2025 advertisement, within four months. Consequently, the writ petition was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the Project Affected Persons reservation quota despite a family member already being appointed under the same scheme.
- Whether the respondent is obligated to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment from the PAP quota.
Subjects
- reservation
- Project Affected Persons
- quota
- appointment
- writ petition
- family restriction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21448-DB
906 - wp 7974 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7974 OF 2019
NIVRUTI RAMRAO SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Adv. Bhosle Mahesh K. for the Petitioner
Mr. M. A. Aher, AGP for State
Adv. M. N. Navandar for Respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 28.04.2026
PER COURT :
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent
No. 2 to grant him benefit of reservation from Project Affected Persons
Quota and appoint him on the post he has applied for.
2. Respondent No. 2 by filing affidavit-in-reply has claimed
that mother of the petitioner namely, Rukhminbai Ramrao Shinde, is
already appointed from Project Affected Persons category in the year
1990, and, as per the scheme only one person from a family is entitled
for appointment.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that
Project Affected Persons Certificate was issued in the name of his father
for acquisition of house Gat No. 41 on 01.03.1984 whereas the petitioner
ksk/ 1/2
906 - wp 7974 OF 2019
is issued Project Affected Persons Certificate on 18.05.2007 for
acquisition of house No. 24 for respondent No. 2. Therefore, Project
Affected Certificate is issued to the petitioner.
4. We find substance in the contention of the petitioner that
inspite of there being a Project Affected Persons Certificate, his rightful
claim is not considered by respondent No. 2 while filling up the quota of
Project Affected Persons.
5. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2, on instructions,
submits that fresh advertisement is issued in the year 2025. The
petitioner's case may be considered for appointment pursuant to the said
advertisement. Of course, the petitioner will have to undergo the
selection process.
6. In the result, Writ Petition is partly allowed.
7. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for appointment from Project Affected Persons Quota within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. As and when the posts are available from that quota, the
petitioner should be considered.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
ksk/ 2/2
Checking your session…