Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Asha Sitaram Kale, belonging to the NTD (woman) category, applied for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Degree/Diploma) under the Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola. Two posts were reserved for the partially deaf and partially dumb (PDPD) category. Initially, Balraj Gedam and Vinod Wankar, who scored 117 and 110 marks respectively, were selected for these posts. However, during verification, their claim to the PDPD category could not be substantiated, and they were not appointed. Consequently, two candidates from the Scheduled Castes (SC) category, who did not suffer from any disability, were selected and appointed. The petitioner, who scored 110 marks (equal to Vinod Wankar), was not selected due to Clause (6) of the Government Resolution dated 27 June 2008, which gives preference to a candidate with higher educational qualifications when marks are equal. Vinod Wankar had better educational qualifications than the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this action, arguing that since the PDPD candidates were found ineligible, the posts should have been filled by candidates from the same category or as per the rules, and she should be considered for appointment. The court observed that the respondents had not justified why the posts were filled by SC candidates instead of considering the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed in those terms.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Appointment - Equal Marks - Petitioner, an NTD (woman) category candidate, scored 110 marks equal to selected SC candidate Vinod Wankar - Initially, two PDPD category candidates were selected but found ineligible - Subsequently, two SC candidates were appointed - Petitioner claimed entitlement to one of the posts - Court held that since the PDPD candidates were ineligible, the posts should have been filled by candidates from the same category or as per rules, and the petitioner with equal marks should be considered - Held that the respondents must consider the petitioner's claim for appointment (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, an NTD (woman) category candidate with marks equal to a selected SC candidate, is entitled to appointment when the initially selected PDPD candidates were found ineligible and the posts were filled by SC candidates.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Agricultural Assistant and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Reservation in public employment
- Equality of opportunity
- Tie-breaker clause
- Government Resolution dated 27 June 2008
- NTD category
- PDPD category
