Bombay High Court
Vinod Banduji Surve vs Maha. State Road Transport ... on 21 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 140/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 140/2016
Vinod Banduji Surve,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o At Lathi, P.O. Seloo Bazar,
Tq. Mangrulpir, District - Washim. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Central Office,
Maharashtra Transport Bhawan,
Dr.Anandrao Nayar Marg,
Mumbai - 400 008.
2. Deputy General Manager (Training),
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation,
Central Training Institute, Bhosari,
Pune - 440 026. RESPONDENTS
Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Charpe, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 21
ST
MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
WP 140/16 2 Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the select list
prepared by the respondent no.2 for appointment on the post of Driver
(Junior). The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.1-
Corporation to permit the petitioner to participate in the driving test and
then appoint the petitioner on the post of Driver if the petitioner is
successful in the driving test.
3. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent
no.1-Corporation, the petitioner had applied for the post of Driver. The
petitioner was successful in the written examination and the documents
tendered by the petitioner were also verified. At the time of driving test,
the respondent no.2, however, noticed that there was some discrepancy
in the application and in the documents tendered by the petitioner
pertaining to the Date of Birth. It was found that in the certificate issued
by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Pune, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is recorded as
30.05.1980, whereas in the application, the petitioner had claimed that
his Date of Birth is 30.05.1986. In view of the major discrepancy
pertaining to the age, in the documents tendered by the petitioner, the
respondent no.2 rejected the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner
has approached this Court in this background.
WP 140/16 3 Judgment
4. Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1986 and the
same could be substantiated by the school leaving certificate. It is stated
that though the Date of Birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded in
the certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education, Pune as 30.05.1980, after the respondent
no.2 rejected the candidature of the petitioner, the Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune has, after
verification, found that the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1986.
It is stated that the petitioner being rustic, had not understood the
consequences of the writing dated 28.11.2015, wherein he had stated
before the respondent-Authorities that his Date of Birth is 30.05.1980 and
it was wrongly mentioned in the application as 30.05.1986.
5. Shri Charpe, the learned counsel for the respondents,
supported the action of the Corporation. It is stated that though the
petitioner had mentioned his Date of Birth in the application to be
30.05.1986, it was found after verification of the documents that the Date
of Birth of the petitioner was noted as 30.05.1980 in the certificate issued
by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Pune. It is stated that the petitioner had also accepted before
the respondents that the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1980 but,
WP 140/16 4 Judgment
it was wrongly mentioned in the application as 30.05.1986. It is fairly
stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that even if the Date of
Birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1986, the petitioner would not be over
aged and the petitioner would be entitled to compete in the selection
process. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed.
6. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to
partly allow the writ petition and grant some relief in favour of the
petitioner. It prima-facie appears from the perusal of the affidavit-in-reply
and the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner that the Date of Birth of
the petitioner is now corrected by the Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune and the same is
recorded as 30.05.1986. The discrepancy in the Date of Birth, in the two
documents, now seems to have been removed. It is not the case of the
respondent-Corporation that the petitioner would have been over aged if
the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1980. It also appears that the
petitioner had not deliberately mentioned his Date of Birth to be
30.05.1986 though he was aware that his Date of Birth is 30.05.1980. In
this background, it would be necessary to direct the respondents to permit
the petitioner to participate in the driving test and if the petitioner is
successful in the same, to consider appointing the petitioner on the post
of Driver. The respondents would be free to record the Date of Birth of
WP 140/16 5 Judgment
the petitioner in the service book, if the petitioner is appointed, only after
due verification. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the
respondents cannot reject the candidature of the petitioner and refuse to
permit the petitioner to participate in the driving test.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondents are directed to conduct the driving test of the
petitioner and if the petitioner is successful in the driving test, the
respondents should appoint the petitioner on the post of Driver (Junior).
The respondents are, however, free to record the correct Date of Birth of
the petitioner, after due verification and enquiry, if the petitioner is
appointed.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
