Bombay High Court
Syed Shahed Syed Naser vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7020 OF 2008
1) Khan Feroz s/o Gulab Khan
Age 31 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o Savda Road, Raver,
Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through Commissioner,
Maharashtra State Priksha Parishad,
17, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Pune - 411 001
(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad)
2) Collector, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
3) Chief Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
4) Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri R.V. Dasalkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.2
Shri M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7069 OF 2008
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:00:02 :::
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
2
Syed Shahed s/o Syed Naser,
Age 30 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o Malangshah Mohalla,
Near Markaz Masjid, Partur,
Tq. Partur, District Jalna ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through Commissioner,
Maharashtra State Priksha Parishad,
17, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Pune - 411 001
(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad)
2) Collector, Jalna,
District Jalna.
3) Chief Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna
4) Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for petitioner
Shri R.V. Dasalkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 & 2
Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.3 & 4
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.415 OF 2009
Khan Farhan s/o Zaheer Khan
Age 20 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o Station Road, Akshay Nagar,
Partur, District Jalna ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:00:02 :::
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
3
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through Commissioner,
Maharashtra State Priksha Parishad,
17, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Pune - 411 001
(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad)
2) Collector, Jalna,
District Jalna.
3) Chief Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna
4) Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for petitioner
Shri R.V. Dasalkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 & 2
Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.3 & 4
.....
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : 28th July, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) :
1. These three Writ Petitions are filed for a writ of
mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as
Shikshan Sevaks for Urdu Medium as well as for the relief of
declaration that the petitioners are successful in CET
Examination, dated 31/8/2008 held for the recruitment of
Shikshan Sevak. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra,
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
respondent No.2 are the respective Collectors of the districts and
respondent No.3 are the Chief Officers of respective Zilla
Parishads.
2. The contentions of the petitioners in brief is that,
after completing Diploma in Education (D.Ed.), they were
qualified for the post of Shikshan Sevak. In pursuance to
advertisement published by respondents in newspaper, the
petitioners appeared for CET Examination held for the
recruitment of Shikshan Sevak on 31/8/2008, in Urdu Medium as
the petitioners have completed their D.Ed. in Urdu Medium. The
respondents ought to have provided question papers for CET
Examination in Urdu Medium. However, on 31/8/2008, to the
surprise of the petitioners, question paper was provided to them
in Marathi Medium and, therefore, they were compelled to write
the answers in Marathi Medium, which resulted into loss of their
opportunity to secure good marks in the CET Examination. In
the result, all the petitioners failed in CET Examination.
Therefore, these petitions arise for above referred appropriate
relief.
3. By filing reply affidavits, respondents raised objection
that, it was not their willful default or negligence to provide
question papers to the petitioners in Marathi language. If any
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
mistake is committed while feeding the data in newly provided
software, the said data cannot be changed by the respondents.
Next objection of the respondents is that, after receipt of Hall
tickets to the candidates appearing for the CET Examination,
nobody submitted complaint regarding issue of incorrect
information. Otherwise also, every petitioner is well conversant
with Marathi language as they had Marathi as compulsory subject
from primary stage up to D.Ed. examination. The Shikshan
Sevaks have to teach these subjects in their future life also.
There was no difficulty for the petitioners to tick mark the
answers against the options provided in answer paper of this
objective examination. Marathi language was not hurdle to
submit the answer papers. However, petitioners could not secure
minimum qualifying marks in the said CET Examination to
become eligible for interview. Therefore, the relief claimed by
the petitioners, cannot be granted.
4. Learned Advocate for petitioners submitted that, the
petitioners being students of Urdu Medium, they were not well
conversant with Marathi language and, therefore, they could not
secure good marks in CET Examination only because question
paper was provided to the petitioners in Marathi language. He
submitted that, on account of negligence on the part of
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
respondents, petitioners, lost good opportunity to get the post of
Shikshan Sevak.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondents
argued in the line of their reply-cum-affidavit.
6. During the course of arguments, it becomes clear
that, petitioners are conversant with Marathi language as it was
one of the subject during their education. So also, it cannot be
ignored that petitioners appeared in the CET Examination and
secured reasonable marks. Only because the petitioners could
not get marks more than the benchmark, they could not be
qualified for interview. It cannot be ignored that, as per the
advertisement of CET Examination for the post of Shikshan
Sevak, it was objective examination and the candidates had to
only tick mark the options provided to them. Therefore, Marathi
language was not hurdle to the petitioners to submit the answer
papers despite they have appeared in the said examination as
Urdu Medium candidates. There is no breach of constitutional
rights of petitioners. In the circumstances, at this stage, the
petitioners cannot be declared as successful candidates and they
cannot be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks. In other words, these
petitions being devoid of merit, deserve to be rejected.
Accordingly, we pass following order :
Writ Petition No.7020/2008 with
W.P. No.7069/2008 with
W.P. No.415/2009
ORDER
Writ Petitions No.7020/2008, 7069/2008 and
415/32009 are rejected. Rule discharged.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (T.V. NALAWADE)
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
