Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of his candidature for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Graduate) under the Project Affected Persons (PAP) category by Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani -- The petitioner possessed a valid PAP certificate issued for land acquired for the university, and had applied under the General PAP category as per an advertisement dated 25.11.2014 -- In a prior judgment dated 14.10.2022 in Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019, the High Court had set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 7, Kapil Pralhadrao Nivral, and directed the university to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment with effect from 06.08.2019, with consequential benefits except back wages -- Despite this, the university issued a communication on 15.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner's candidature and a corrigendum on 07.06.2023 altering Respondent No. 7's category classification -- The court found that the university failed to implement the prior judgment, violating judicial discipline and Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 -- The court quashed the impugned communications and directed the university to comply with the prior judgment, appointing the petitioner if found eligible, with costs imposed on the university for non-compliance
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition, addressed a service dispute involving the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Graduate) under the horizontal reservation for Project Affected Persons (PAP) -- The petitioner challenged the communication dated 15.09.2023 and corrigendum dated 07.06.2023 issued by the university -- The court emphasized the binding nature of its prior judgment in Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019, which had set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 7 and directed consideration of the petitioner's candidature -- The judgment examined Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and the advertisement's terms, particularly Clause 24 specifying the cut-off date of 25.12.2014 -- The court held that the university's actions violated judicial discipline and statutory provisions, and quashed the impugned communications, directing compliance with the prior order -- The petition was allowed with costs imposed on the university for non-compliance
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the university's rejection of the petitioner's candidature under the Project Affected Persons category, despite a prior court order directing consideration, violates judicial discipline and statutory mandates
Final Decision
The court Partly allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 15.09.2023 and corrigendum dated 07.06.2023, directed the university to comply with the prior judgment dated 14.10.2022 in Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019, and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the university for non-compliance
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
- 1999
- Judicial discipline
- Binding nature of court orders
- Horizontal reservation for Project Affected Persons
- Cut-off date for eligibility
- Implementation of judicial directions
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 146
Writ Petition No. 432 of 2024
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi J. , Hiten S. Venegavkar J.
Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan, Mr. S.B. Narwade, Mr. M.N. Navandar, Mr. M.V. Solunke
Sachin S/o. Balasaheb Raner
The State of Maharashtra, The District Collector, Parbhani, The Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) and District Rehabilitation Officer, Parbhani, The Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani (VNMKV), The Registrar VNMAU, Parbhani, The Selection Committee in respect of Advertisement No.VNMKV-1/2014 dated 25.11.2014, Kapil S/o. Pralhadrao Nivral
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service dispute involving rejection of candidature under Project Affected Persons category for a university post
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the university's communication rejecting his candidature and the corrigendum altering Respondent No. 7's category, and implementation of the prior court order
Filing Reason
The university failed to comply with a prior High Court judgment directing consideration of the petitioner's appointment, issuing impugned communications instead
Previous Decisions
In Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019, the High Court set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 7 and directed the university to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment with effect from 06.08.2019, with consequential benefits except back wages
Issues
Whether the university's rejection of the petitioner's candidature violates the binding prior judgment and judicial discipline
Whether the university's actions comply with Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and the advertisement terms
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the university failed to implement the prior court order, violating judicial discipline and statutory provisions
The respondents defended the rejection based on administrative grounds, but the court found it contrary to the prior judgment
Ratio Decidendi
Judicial orders are binding and must be implemented in letter and spirit; failure to do so violates judicial discipline and statutory mandates, particularly under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999
Judgment Excerpts
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India presents a matter which, though arising out of an individual service claim, raises issues of institutional discipline, fidelity to judicial orders, and the limits of administrative authority when confronted with binding directions of a constitutional court
The judgment examined Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and the terms of the advertisement in detail
It is material to note that the judgment dated 14.10.2022 has attained finality. Its findings bind the parties
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019, resulting in a judgment dated 14.10.2022 directing consideration of his appointment -- The university failed to comply, issuing impugned communications in 2023 -- The petitioner filed the current Writ Petition No. 432 of 2024, which was reserved on 03 February, 2026 and pronounced on 26 February, 2026
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999: Section 6
