Bombay High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appointment to the post of Junior Laboratory Chemist under the category of project affected persons, the Division Bench comprising G. S. Kulkarni* and Aarti Sathe, JJ., held the claim to be thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable. The Court noted that reliance on the land acquisition of the petitioner’s grandfather, effected decades earlier, rendered the petitioner ineligible. Emphasising that the advertisement required the petitioner himself to be a project affected person, the Court observed that ancestral acquisition was contrary to its terms. The Court further highlighted that the petition, filed years after cancellation of appointment, suffered from delay and laches and was accordingly rejected without costs.
Background:
The dispute arose from an appointment process initiated by the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. for the post of Junior Laboratory Chemist. The advertisement contained a specific clause that preference would be given to project affected persons whose lands were acquired for Mahagenco Projects. The petitioner applied under this category but did not submit documents to show that he was a project affected person. A notice was issued warning cancellation of his appointment. In response, he submitted a Land Acquisition Certificate dated 07-09-2013, which only certified that land belonging to his grandfather was acquired in 1964, without details of the award.
The petitioner contended that at the relevant time such certificates were not being issued as a matter of policy and relied on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in another case where the land of the very petitioner was acquired. The State, however, opposed, pointing out that the petitioner himself was not a project affected person and that the certificate produced was insufficient. It was further argued that accepting such claims would open floodgates of applications from legal heirs of landowners whose lands were acquired long ago.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the advertisement itself was clear when it said that the person applying needs to be himself a project affected person. It was noted that the petitioner claiming appointment on the basis of grandfather’s land being acquired almost 45 years back and claiming to be a project affected persons was contrary to the advertisement itself. The Court highlighted that if such contention of the petitioner was accepted, then the advertisement would have clearly stated that the legal heirs of the original land owners whose lands were acquired in time immemorial, may be the grandfather or the great grandfather, would become eligible, which was certainly not the condition of the advertisement.
The Court emphasised that the certificate produced did not suffice, as it was not the petitioner’s land which was acquired. It was observed that the petitioner intended to take a chance by claiming himself to be the project affected person and was rightly considered not eligible for appointment. The Court further noted that the petition suffered from delay and laches, since the communication cancelling the appointment was dated 25-05-2016, but the petition was filed only on 19-09-2022. On such ground also, the petition could not be entertained.
The Court clarified that in the event in future any advertisement is issued, the petitioner would be entitled to participate in any selection process if so eligible, but not as a project affected person and subject to complying with the requirements of eligibility which may be notified. Accordingly, the petition was rejected with no costs.
[Nitin Kedu Rajole v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 15859 of 2022, decided on 03-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G. S. Kulkarni
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vaibhav D. Kadam a/w. Shrinath Badade, Vedika Bhoir and Rayyan Shah
For the Respondents: M.P. Thakur, AGP, Amita Chaware
Buy Constitution of India HERE
