Dnyaneshwar Virbhan Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4723 Bom

                                                    1

                                        UNREPORTED




                                                                                
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                        
                                           BOMBAY

                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                       
                               WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2015.


              Dnyaneshwar Virbhan Patil,
              Age 35 years, Occ.Nil,




                                        
              R/o Tade, Tq. Erandol,
              Dist.Jalgaon.   ig       ... Petitioner.
                            
                               Versus

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
              through its Principal
              Secretary, State Transport
      

              Department, Mantralaya,
              Mumbai-32.
   



              2.The Chief Controller,
              Central Office, Maharashtra
              Wahatuk Bhavan, Dr.
              Anandrao Nayar Road,





              Mumbai Central,
              Mumbai-400 008.

              3. The Deputy Chief
              Controller (Karmachari
              Varga), Central Office,





              Maharashtra Wahatuk Bhavan,
              Dr. Anandrao Nayar Road,
              Mumbai Central,
              Mumbai-400 008.

              4. The Divisional Controller,
              Maharashtra State Transport
              Jalgaon, Tq. And Dist.
              Jalgaon.                      ... Respondents.




    ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2016                        ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2016 00:19:07 :::
                                                     2

                                      ...
              Mr.V.P.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.




                                                                                
              Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, A.G.P. for the State.
              Mr.M.K.Goyanka, advocate for Respondent No.4.
                                      ...




                                                        
                                       CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                               K.L.WADANE,JJ.

Date : 19.08.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the parties, taken up for final

hearing.

3. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner applied

for the post of driver (Junior). The candidature

of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that

the certificate issued by the Delhi Board is not

acceptable. Aggrieved thereby, the present

petition.

4. Mr.V.P.Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner states that on erroneous grounds, the

candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

The petitioner possesses 10th standard

qualification from the Board of Higher Secondary

Education, Delhi and the said certificate is

equivalent to the Secondary School Certificate

issued by the Board in Maharashtra. The learned

counsel relies on the Government Resolution dated

23.8.2011. According to the learned counsel, the

Respondents be directed to consider the

candidature of the petitioner.

5. Mr.Goyanka, learned counsel for

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that in fact, the

petitioner had supplied wrong information in the

application and on that count the candidature of

the petitioner is rejected. The SSC certificate

is not issued by the Board. In application, the

petitioner had stated the Board as Nasik, which

is incorrect. As such the action of the

Respondent in rejecting the candidature of the

petitioner was legal and proper.

6. We have heard learned A.G.P. also.

7. The petitioner possesses the SSC

certificate of the Board of Higher Secondary,

Delhi and the Center Code is 105-G, Nasik. The

petitioner had produced the said certificate

along with his application. In the column of the

name of the University/Board, the petitioner had

stated at Nasik i.e. the place from where the

petitioner had appeared. However, the

examination is conducted by the Higher Secondary,

Delhi. It can not be said that the petitioner

has submitted false information or has misled the

Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The certificate was

produced along with the application and the said

certificate appears to be equivalent to the

certificate of the Board of Maharashtra.

8. In view of the above, there was no

impediment for the Respondents to consider the

candidature of the petitioner on its own merits

and the reason for rejecting the candidature is

improper.

9. In light of the above, the Respondent

shall consider the candidature of the petitioner

on its own merits and shall not reject it on the

ground that the SSC certificate is issued by the

Board of Higher Secondary, Delhi.

10. Rule accordingly made absolute in above

terms. No costs.

                      Sd/-                           Sd/-
                (K.L.WADANE,J.)             (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)




                                        
              asp/office/wp6950.15