Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Mr. Santosh Parshuram Kanthe on 17 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
Rane * 1/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary to the
Government, School Education
and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Director of Education
Mumbai Region, Mumbai,
Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Charni Road,
Mumbai-400 004. ......Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
: V E R S U S :
Mr. Santosh Parshuram Kanthe
R/at : C/109, Sahyog Housing Society,
Kharegaon, Near TMC School,
Kalwa, Thane-400 605. .......Respondent
(Orig. Applicant)
------
Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for the State, petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bandiwadekar i/by. Mr. Bhushan A.
Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 23:59:43 :::
Rane * 2/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE :- 17 th JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) :
1. Heard Learned AGP for the petitioners and
Learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable
forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3. The petitioner issued an advertisement on 19th
June, 2008 for filing up nine posts of Assistant Project
Officers. The respondent's name was in the waiting list
which had five names. The respondent was given
appointment letter dated 3rd February, 2010 as some
persons in the select list did not join. The respondent was
granted 15 days time to join.
4. The respondent by letter dated 5th March,
Rane * 3/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
2010 preferred an application for extension of time to join
the said post. Two days extension was granted and the
respondent had to join on 11th March, 2010. On 17th
March, 2010 the respondent preferred another
application for extension of time to join the post as he
suddenly fell ill. The said application for extension of time
was rejected. Hence, the respondent approached the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 26th February,
2015 allowed the O.A. and the petitioners were directed to
allow the respondent to join as Assistant Project Officer
within two weeks from the date of the order of the
Tribunal. The present petition has been preferred being
aggrieved by this order.
5. Though, the letter of appointment was dated
3rd February, 2010 it was received by the respondent on
3rd March, 2010. As the respondent was working in
government aided private school as a Teacher, he
personally went to the office of the petitioner on 5th
March, 2010 and asked for extension of time to join the
Rane * 4/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
post. The petitioner by letter dated 9th March, 2010
granted him two days time to join i.e. 11th March, 2010.
It is stated on behalf of the respondent that, on 11th
March, 2010 he could not join as he suddenly fell ill, so
also his employer did not relieve him. The School where
the respondent was working had asked the respondent to
complete the evaluation of S.S.C. answer sheets before he
could be relieved. Therefore, the respondent had
approached various authorities but was not given any
extension of time.
6. On behalf the respondent, it was contended
that those who were given appointment from the selection
list on 31st August, 2003 were allowed 30 days time to
join duties, whereas, the respondent was given only 15
days to join the duty. In addition, the candidates from the
selection list were informed telegraphically but the
respondent was only informed by ordinary post. The
respondent has placed on record, the copy of the
appointment letter dated 31st August, 2009 issued to one
Rane * 5/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
Ms. C.B. Paradke in which it was stated that, she should
join within 30 days, whereas, in the appointment letter of
the respondent, it was stated that he had to join within 15
days. The petitioner admittedly took four days from 5th
March, 2010 to 9th March, 2010 to give extension of two
days to the respondent to join his post. It was admitted by
the petitioner before the Tribunal in the communication
dated 16th April, 2010 of the School Education and
Sports Department that appointment letter sent to nine
candidates in the select list were sent by telegram. The
telegrams were sent on 11th August, 2009 followed by
letter dated 31st August, 2009. The aforesaid letter dated
16th April, 2010, further states that, those who did not
join from the selection list were informed on 16th
January, 2010 to join within 15 days. It is thus clear
that, those who were given appointment by letter dated
31st August, 2009 were given time of around five months
to join. Only after 15 days period given by letter dated
16th January, 2010 expired, the persons on waiting list
were given appointment and were given 15 days to join by
Rane * 6/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
sending them a letter by ordinary post which letter was
dated 3rd February, 2010. The petitioner has not
explained the discriminatory treatment meted out to the
respondent as compared to the candidates in the selection
list. Thus, the claim of respondent that he was
discriminated against, stands substantiated.
7. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf
of the respondent that, the appointment letter dated 3rd
February, 2010 was actually dispatched on 18th March,
2010. The postal stamp is not clear. However, the claim
of the petitioner that the letter was actually sent on 3rd
February, 2010 is clearly not tenable as the date on the
outward register does not prove that the letter was
dispatched on that date. It only shows that the letter was
dated 3rd February, 2010. The record shows that, in
copy of the outward register, only for 3rd February, 2010
the date of dispatch is shown, while regarding entries on
other dates, no date of dispatch is shown. Thus, the
claim of the respondent that, he received the letter dated
Rane * 7/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
3rd February, 2010 after 15 days time granted in the said
letter had expired, appears to be genuine.
8. The respondent has been able to demonstrate
that he had been meted out treatment which was
arbitrary and discriminatory. Though the petitioner took
time from 5th March, 2010 to 9th March, 2010 to grant
the extension of time, extension was granted only of 2
days. It was expected that the petitioner would grant
reasonable extension of time considering all the facts.
However, reasonable time was not granted. There was no
reason as to why a reasonable period was not granted to
the respondent to join the post.
9. The facts on record, clearly show that the
action of the petitioner was arbitrary, discriminatory and
highly unreasonable. The Tribunal has taken all these
facts into consideration and therefore allowed the O.A. No
case is made out for interference. Hence, Rule is
discharged. Writ Petition is dismissed.
Rane * 8/8 * WP-1129-2016 (sr.12)
Mon, 17.7.2017
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)
