Bombay High Court: No claim for reservation can be made simultaneously in two different categories
Title: Pradeep Bapurao Mohite Patil v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
Decided on: 18.08.2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 1736 OF 2021
CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Facts of the Case
Petition has been filed by the Petitioner because his name was not selected by the managing director and General manager of the Company for the post of sub-station Assistant, although he had quota reservation under OBC and Project Affected Persons Category (PAP). He also applied from the category of Apprenticeship Training programme (APP). The petitioner had rendered services as Junior Operator on outsourcing basis through Shrikrushna Vijtantri Apprentice Sushikshit Berojgar Seva Sahkari Sanstha Ltd. Jalna from 12.12.2011 to 01.03.2014. At the time of appearing in the selection process, he was working as Junior Operator on outsourcing basis.
Out of which 355 posts were earmarked for OBC category. Out of those 355 posts, 18 posts were earmarked for horizontal reservation of PAP and 36 posts were earmarked for APP category.
He claimed relaxation of age and the upper limit of age came to be 34 years and he was well within the limit as prescribed by Clause 4 of the advertisement No. 05 of 2019. In the written test, he scored 32 marks which was above the cut-off marks for PAP category.
The Respondents on the other hand, claim that for the APP Category was 56.5 marks and his score was way below the cut-off. He was above the age limit of 32 and since the PAP category is age-barred he cannot vail reservation under that category. The Petitioner, therefore, has no merit in the present petition.
Issues
(I) Whether there is any horizontal reservation provided for APP category or APP category is only meant for relaxation of upper age limit?
(ii) Whether the candidature of the petitioner is covered by horizontal PAP category or APP category?
(iii) Whether the petitioner can claim benefit of both the categories i.e., PAP and APP simultaneously?
Decision
The court concluded as follows:
The advertisement clearly delineated distinct horizontal reservation categories for PAP and APP, and the petitioner could not assert that APP was solely for age relaxation. The petitioner’s date of birth rendered him ineligible for the OBC-PAP category, but he was eligible for OBC-APP due to his age. The petitioner’s simultaneous claims for both categories were not valid, and such interchangeability was impermissible. The petitioner’s score fell short of the cut-off for the OBC-APP category, making him unqualified for the select list or waitlist.
The petitioner’s reliance on the circular dated 03.07.2004 was misplaced. There is no material placed on record to show that the circular issued by the General Administration Department of the State of Maharashtra is applicable to the respondent company.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner’s claim, upholding the respondent’s selection process and criteria.
Top of Form
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law