AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 278 wordsKURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by the denial of selection and appointment to the post of Peon. The main contention is that the
appellant is a deserted woman and she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. She has three children as well. All other appointed persons are,
according to the appellant, degree holders whereas the qualification required for the post is only 4th standard.
When this matter came up to this Court, the following order was passed on 16.05.2018 :“We request the learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State to ascertain whether there is any vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner as a special case, without being
treated as a precedent.
Post on 12th July, 2018.â€
Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned standing counsel appearing for the State, submits that as of now, there is no vacancy available. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which we have referred to above, we are of the view that this is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice and for doing complete justice.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to accommodate the appellant in any one of the arising vacancies in
Class IV in District Buldhana.
We make it clear that there may not be any appointment in Class IV without first accommodating the appellant. We further make it clear that
this Judgment is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the same may not be treated as a precedent.Â
No costs.Â