Bombay High Court
Balaji Hanumant Morale vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 29 March, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 20-WP6639-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6639 OF 2015
Balaji s/o. Hanumant Morale,
Age Major, Occ.Driver,
r/o. At post Tambewadi,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad ..Petitioner
versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Chairman,
Selection Committee,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Sangali Division, Sangali
3] The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Sangali Division, Sangali
4] Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi ..Respondents
--
Mr.P.B.Gapat, advocate for petitioner
Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent no.1 - State
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2016 23:59:06 :::
2 20-WP6639-15.odt
Mr.U.B.Shriram, advocate i/b. Mr.D.S.Bagul,
advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
Mr.A.G.Talhar, advocate for respondent no.4
--
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 29, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.)
Heard.
2]
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
petition is taken up for final hearing.
3] This petition is filed seeking direction to
respondent nos.2 and 3 to issue appointment order
appointing the petitioner to the post of Driver in
the employment of respondent no.3.
4] It is the case of the petitioner that
respondent no.2 initiated recruitment process for
filling up the posts of Drivers in the year 2015.
The petitioner is possessing requisite
3 20-WP6639-15.odt
qualifications for appointment to the post of
Driver. Therefore, he applied for the said post.
Respondent no.2 conducted written examination. The
petitioner passed the said examination, and his
name is included in the select list at Serial
No.550. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for
verification of the documents by respondent No.3.
During the course of verification of documents,
the petitioner was told by respondent no.2 that,
he possesses Secondary School Certificate, issued
by National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida,
which institute is not recognised by respondent
no.4. Therefore, the petitioner was considered
unfit for the said post for the aforesaid reason
and also for the reasons which are mentioned in
the Screening Committee report.
5] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
invited our attention to the copy of the
certificate issued by the National Institute of
4 20-WP6639-15.odt
Open Schooling at Exhibit "C", page 10 of the
compilation of the Writ Petition, and submitted
that though the said institution is located at
Noida, it is an autonomous institution under MHRD,
Government of India and also Noida region comes
under NCR. Learned counsel further invited our
attention to page 11 of the compilation of the
Writ Petition and submitted that the petitioner
has been declared 'Pass' in the Secondary School
Examination conducted by the said Board.
6] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
further invited our attention to the letter
addressed to all the Regional Managers of State
Road Transport Corporation by respondent no.3,
wherein, in clause 2, it is mentioned that the
candidates who have passed Secondary School
Certificate examination from the National Open
Schooling University, New Delhi, should be
considered eligible for appointment to the posts
5 20-WP6639-15.odt
which are advertised. Learned counsel, relying
upon the pleadings in the petition and grounds
therein, submits that, the petitioner possesses
the necessary and requisite qualification and
therefore, the petitioner ought to have been
appointed as Driver.
7]
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no.3, relying upon the averments in
the affidavit-in-reply and contents of impugned
communication, submitted that the certificate
produced by the petitioner is of National
Institute of Open Schooling, Noida and not from an
institute at New Delhi, and therefore, the
petitioner's candidature for the post of Driver
has been rightly rejected. He further submits that
the petitioner also did not fulfill the other two
requirements which are mentioned in the Screening
Committee's report.
6 20-WP6639-15.odt
8] Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4,
on instructions from the Officer who is present in
the Court, submitted that the National Institute
of Open Schooling at Noida, is also a recognised
institution of the Government of India and
therefore, there was no reason for respondent
no.2, to reject the candidature of the petitioner
for the post of Driver on the ground that the said
institute is not situated in New Delhi.
9] We have given careful consideration to the
submissions of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.3 and learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.4. With their able assistance, we
have perused the pleadings in the petition,
annexures thereto and in particular, the
certificate at Exhibit "C" page 10 to the
compilation of the Writ Petition.
7 20-WP6639-15.odt
10] Upon careful perusal of the copies of the
documents placed on record, it appears that the
said certificate is issued by the National
Institute of Open Schooling, situated at Noida, an
autonomous institution under MHRD, Government of
India. In the said certificate, it is mentioned
that the said institution is situated at Noida
(NCR). The copy of passing certificate is also
placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, it
appears that the petitioner possesses requisite
qualification for appointment to the post of
Driver, however, according to respondent no.2, the
said institution is not situated in New Delhi and
therefore, the said certificate had not been
accepted.
11] In our opinion, since the National Institute
of Open Schooling, Noida, is an autonomous
institution under MHRD, Government of India and
even according to learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.4 - Union of India, the said
8 20-WP6639-15.odt
institution is recognised by respondent no.4,
there was no valid reason for respondent no.2 in
not accepting the said certificate.
12] So far as the other two grounds which are
mentioned in the screening test report are
concerned, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, on instructions, undertakes to
resubmit the copies of the relevant documents
within a period of two weeks from today before
respondent no.3.
13] In the light of the discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs, the reasons assigned by
respondent no.3 to declare the present petitioner
unfit for the post of Driver are quashed and set
aside. Respondent no.3 is directed to take a
decision afresh regarding appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Driver, within a period
of eight weeks from today, however, without
9 20-WP6639-15.odt
raising a query about the certificate issued by
the National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida,
and shall treat the said certificate as a valid
proof of passing of Secondary School Examination
by the petitioner.
14] The Writ Petition is partly allowed to the
above extent. Rule is made absolute in the above
terms.
15] Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
