Bombay High Court
Ravindra S/O. Ramdas Sahare vs State Of Maha. The. Secretary, ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1626.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1626/2016
PETITIONER: Ravindra s/o Ramdas Sahare,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
Office at Aniket College of Social Work,
Wardha, Dayal Nagar, Wardha, Tah. and
District - Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Commissioner, Social Welfare, 3, Church
Road, Near Police Commissioner's Office,
Pune.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare,
Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha.
4. University Grants Commission,
Bahadursha Jafar Marg, New Delhi -
110002, through its Secretary.
5. Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur, through its Registrar,
Civil Lines, Near Maharajbag, Nagpur.
6. Aniket Shikshan Sanstha, Dighori
(Na), Registration No.F-4261 (Bh),
through its Secretary, Aniket College of
Social Work, Dayal Nagar, Wardha,
Tah. and District - Wardha.
7. Aniket College of Social Work,
Dayal Nagar, Wardha, Tah. and District -
Wardha, through its Principal.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:54:16 :::
wp1626.16.odt
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri I.G. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.K. Bangadkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for respondent no.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 29.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
Whether the respondent no.7 was justified in withholding
the salary of the petitioner only because there was a discrepancy in the
name of the petitioner in two documents pertaining to the petitioner is
the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant
Professor by the respondent no.7 - College. In the certificate issued by the
University Grants Commission, New Delhi that the petitioner had passed
the NET examination, the name of the petitioner was shown as
'Shri Kumar Ravindra Ramdas Sahare'. The respondent no.7 by the
impugned order, dated 23.9.2015 withheld the salary of the petitioner
until the petitioner gets his name on the NET examination certificate
corrected from the competent authority. The order, dated 23.9.2015 is
impugned in the instant petition.
wp1626.16.odt
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the respondent no.7 has committed a serious error in withholding the
salary of the petitioner only because word 'Kumar' was inserted in the
certificate issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi in
favour of the petitioner. It appears that the name of the petitioner is
'Ravindra Ramdas Sahare' and in the NET examination certificate it was
mentioned as 'Kumar Ravindra Ramdas Sahare'. The word 'Kumar' in the
NET examination certificate only depicted that the petitioner is a male. It
is not the case of the respondent no.7 that the petitioner has not passed
the NET examination. The respondent no.7 was not justified in
withholding the salary of the petitioner for the said reason. It is also
notable that the petitioner has got the certificate corrected and the name
of the petitioner appears as 'Ravindra Ramdas Sahare' in the corrected
certificate issued by the University Grants Commission.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed
with costs. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents
should release the salary in favour of the petitioner as early as possible
and positively within a period of one month.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
