Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Prajakta Rajendra Kuchekar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 15th February 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed her Original Application No.193 of 2024. The petitioner had applied for the post of Craft Instructor (Mechanic Tractor & Mechanic Refrigeration and Air Conditioning) pursuant to an advertisement issued on 17th August 2023 by respondent no.2. In the application form, she selected 'Yes' for the option 'to be considered under female category'. She belongs to NT-C female category. On 6th October 2023, a provisional list was published, and the petitioner's name did not appear. She sent an email on 9th October 2023 objecting that some female candidates who had not ticked the female category option were considered under NT-C category. Receiving no positive response, she approached the Tribunal, which dismissed her OA. The basic grievance was that female candidates who did not opt for the female category were considered, whereas the petitioner who opted was not found eligible. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any illegality or arbitrariness in the recruitment process. The court noted that the Tribunal's order was justified and no interference was warranted.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Female Category Option - Advertisement required candidates to opt for female category by ticking 'Yes' - Petitioner ticked 'Yes' but was not selected - Other candidates who did not tick 'Yes' were considered - Held that the Tribunal's dismissal was justified as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the recruitment process for Craft Instructor posts, specifically regarding the consideration of female candidates who did not opt for the female category.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any illegality or arbitrariness in the recruitment process and that the Tribunal's order was justified.
Law Points
- Recruitment
- Reservation
- Female Category
- Option
- Eligibility
- Administrative Tribunal
- Judicial Review
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 37
Writ Petition No.4417 of 2024
A.S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mr. Aditya S. Raktade for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP for respondents-State
Smt. Prajakta Rajendra Kuchekar
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing Original Application regarding recruitment process.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 15th February 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing her Original Application.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's name did not appear in the provisional list for Craft Instructor posts, and she alleged that female candidates who did not opt for female category were considered, while she who opted was not found eligible.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No.193 of 2024 on 15th February 2024.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA without considering the petitioner's grievance regarding consideration of candidates who did not opt for female category.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that female candidates who did not opt for female category were considered, whereas she who opted was not found eligible.
Respondents argued that the Tribunal's order was justified and no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the recruitment process, and the Tribunal's dismissal of the OA was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 15th February 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (‘Tribunal’) whereby the Original Application No.193 of 2024 (OA) filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the female candidates who did not opt for option, ‘Do you want to opt for the post reserved for Ladies?’, have been considered whereas the petitioner who tick-marked the same is not found eligible.
Procedural History
Advertisement issued on 17th August 2023. Provisional list published on 6th October 2023. Petitioner sent email on 9th October 2023. Filed OA before Tribunal, which was dismissed on 15th February 2024. Filed writ petition on 27th March 2024, which was dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
