Bombay High Court
Shri. Mangesh Kashinath Battase vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 December, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
WP. 2586-17.doc
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 2586 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2662 OF 2017
Mangesh Kashinath Battase ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
And
Pravin C. Mahajan ... Applicant
(in Civil Application)
WITH
WRIT PETITION N. 1340 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2825 OF 2017
Devidas Ratan Rokade ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
And
Pravin C. Mahajan ... Applicant
(in Civil Application)
***
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Aashish Satpute, for the Petitioner in WP.
2586/2017.
Mr. C. T. Chandratre, for the Petitioner in WP. 1340/2016.
Mr. Sachin Pune, for the Applicant in the Civil Application.
Mrs. Rupali M. Shinde, AGP for Respondent No. 1 in both petitions.
***
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:30:57 :::
WP. 2586-17.doc
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : B. R. GAVAI, J.]
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent No. 1 in both
the petitions. By consent of parties, both the petitions are taken up for
final hearing.
2. By way of present petitions, the Petitioner in respective
petitions have challenged the orders passed by the Education Officer,
thereby withdrawing the approval granted to their appointment as
Shikshan Sevak.
3. The Petitioners in response to the advertisement issued by
the Management applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak. After they
were found to be meritorious, they were appointed in the year 2013
and the approval was granted to them as Shikshan Sevak. However,
subsequently on the basis of the complaint by the intervenor in Writ
Petition No. 2586 of 2017, the approval came to be withdrawn. The
withdrawal of approval is on the ground that the advertisements were
published in the newspaper, which was not on the list of Governemnt
WP. 2586-17.doc
recognised newspapers.
4. We find that the Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Nashik Region, Nashik has erred in entertaining the
complaint of a party, who claims to be a rival in the management. No
doubt that if a party, who had been deprived of participating in the
selection process on account of advertisements not being widely
published, the Respondents could have been justified in entertaining
the complaint. However, Respondent No. 1 could not have entertained
the complaint of a rival in the management. It is nobody's case that
the Petitioners do not possess requisite qualification. In that view of
the matter, the order impugned in both the petitions is quashed and set
aside, and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in both
the petitions.
5. Needless to state that consequence shall follow i.e. upon
completion of three years tenure as Shikshan Sevak, Petitioner in both
the petitions is entitled to the arrears of salary, which shall be paid to
them within a period of three months.
6. In view of disposal of both the petitions, Civil
WP. 2586-17.doc
Application Nos. 2662 of 20017 and 2825 of 2017 filed in the
respective petition for intervention do not survive, and are accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
[MANISH PITALE, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
