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
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
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
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
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
