WP.3955.01
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3955/2001 Jawahar s/o Jivtu Bhiwagade Aged about 34 years, occu: service R/o R-4, Shiv-Vatsal Aptt.
7, Nargundkar Layout, Khamla Road
Nagpur - 440 015. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Deputy Director,
Vocational Education and Training
Sadar, Nagpur.
2) The Yugantar Education Society,
Through its Secretary
Near Sadar Police Station
Sadar, Nagpur (M.C.V.C.)
3) The Principal/ Head Master,
Raosaheb Thaware Junior College
(M.C.V.C. ) new Babulkheda, Nagpur.
4) The Director,
Vocational Education and Training (M.S. )
3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - 400 001. ...RESPONDENTS ...........................................................................................................................
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Harshada Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent no.1 ...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 5th June, 2017
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:57 :::
WP.3955.01
2
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, dated 22.02.1996, granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Instructor with effect from 12.07.1995 as against the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment with effect from 09.07.1992.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor by the respondent
-Management in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College, Nagpur on 09.07.1992, after following the due procedure for selection. After the petitioner was appointed, the Management sent the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval to his appointment on the post of Instructor from 09.07.1992. By the impugned communication, it was informed by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner while seeking appointment, was doubtful and hence the petitioner was entitled to grant of approval with effect from 12.07.1995 by counting his experience in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College as an Instructor. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication and has sought the approval to his appointment on the post of Instructor, with effect from 09.07.1992.
3. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had the requisite experience of more than three years and had tendered the necessary certificate in that regard to the respondent- ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:57 :::
WP.3955.01 3 Management, while seeking the appointment. It is submitted that merely because a part of the experience certificate was not clear and legible, the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training wrongly held that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner was doubtful and the petitioner was not entitled to grant of approval from the date of his appointment from 09.07.1992. It is submitted that merely because the Deputy Director of Vocational Education had a doubt about the correctness or otherwise of the certificate tendered by the petitioner, the experience of the petitioner could not have been wiped out.
4. Ms.Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training submitted, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 4 that the experience certificate tendered by the petitioner was found to be doubtful. It is submitted that the Deputy Director of Education had asked the certificate issuing authority ie, M/s Sarika Electricals and Contractors, Nagpur to submit the muster roll and the other relevant documents so as to consider whether the petitioner had actually gained the experience. It is submitted that after going through the papers tendered by M/s Sarika Electricals and Contractors, Nagpur, the Deputy Director thought that it was doubtful whether the petitioner possessed the requisite experience and whether the experience certificate was properly issued. It is submitted that after rejecting the experience certificate tendered by the petitioner as being doubtful, the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:57 ::: WP.3955.01 4 Deputy Director rightly granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an Instructor with effect from 12.07.1995 after counting his experience as an Instructor in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Deputy Director was not justified in granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 12.07.1995 instead of 09.07.1992 merely because the Deputy Director had a doubt about the correctness or otherwise of the experience certificate. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor on 09.07.1992 and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was either not qualified to hold the post or that the appointment of the petitioner was not made after following the due procedure for selection. The only objection of the respondent-Deputy Director is that the experience certificate possessed by the petitioner is doubtful. The Deputy Director had a doubt whether the petitioner had actually rendered service of more than three years with the Institution that had issued the experience certificate. Merely because the Deputy Director had a doubt about the correctness of the experience certificate, the Deputy Director could not have refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 09.07.1992. The Management had appointed the petitioner after verifying the experience certificate in the year 1992. Merely because there was some doubt in the mind of the education authority in regard to the experience gained or possessed by the petitioner, the Deputy Director could not have refused to grant approval to the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:57 ::: WP.3955.01 5 petitioner's appointment with effect from 09.07.1992. There is no document to show that the Deputy Director was firmly of the view that the certificate produced by the petitioner was false or fabricated or that the petitioner did not possess the experience of three years, as required. The Deputy Director could not have rejected the proposal for grant of approval with effect from 09.07.1992 only on the basis of the doubt that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not genuine and petitioner did not possess the requisite experience. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary for the Deputy Director to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 09.07.1992, when the petitioner was appointed on probation after following the due process of selection. The Deputy Director was not justified in counting the experience of the petitioner in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College as the requisite experience and granting him approval with effect from 12.07.1995. It would be necessary for the Deputy Director of Vocational Eduction and Training to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 09.07.1992 as the petitioner possessed the necessary educational qualifications for holding the post of an Instructor on the date of his appointment on 09.07.1992.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 09.07.1992, in accordance with law. ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:57 :::
WP.3955.01 6 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:57 :::