Bombay High Court
Jawahar S/O Jivtu Bhiwagade vs The Dy.Director Vocational Edu.& ... on 5 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP.3955.01
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3955/2001
Jawahar s/o Jivtu Bhiwagade
Aged about 34 years, occu: service
R/o R-4, Shiv-Vatsal Aptt.
7, Nargundkar Layout, Khamla Road
Nagpur - 440 015. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Deputy Director,
Vocational Education and Training
Sadar, Nagpur.
2) The Yugantar Education Society,
Through its Secretary
Near Sadar Police Station
Sadar, Nagpur (M.C.V.C.)
3) The Principal/ Head Master,
Raosaheb Thaware Junior College
(M.C.V.C. ) new Babulkheda, Nagpur.
4) The Director,
Vocational Education and Training (M.S. )
3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - 400 001. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Harshada Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent no.1
...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 5th June, 2017
WP.3955.01
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, dated
22.02.1996, granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Instructor with effect from 12.07.1995 as against the proposal for
grant of approval to the appointment with effect from 09.07.1992.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor by the respondent
-Management in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College, Nagpur on 09.07.1992,
after following the due procedure for selection. After the petitioner was
appointed, the Management sent the proposal of the petitioner for grant of
approval to his appointment on the post of Instructor from 09.07.1992. By the
impugned communication, it was informed by the Deputy Director of
Vocational Education and Training that the experience certificate produced by
the petitioner while seeking appointment, was doubtful and hence the
petitioner was entitled to grant of approval with effect from 12.07.1995 by
counting his experience in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College as an Instructor.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication and has sought
the approval to his appointment on the post of Instructor, with effect from
09.07.1992.
3. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had the requisite experience of more than three years and had
tendered the necessary certificate in that regard to the respondent-
WP.3955.01
Management, while seeking the appointment. It is submitted that merely
because a part of the experience certificate was not clear and legible, the
Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training wrongly held that the
experience certificate produced by the petitioner was doubtful and the
petitioner was not entitled to grant of approval from the date of his
appointment from 09.07.1992. It is submitted that merely because the Deputy
Director of Vocational Education had a doubt about the correctness or
otherwise of the certificate tendered by the petitioner, the experience of the
petitioner could not have been wiped out.
4. Ms.Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training submitted, by referring
to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 4 that the
experience certificate tendered by the petitioner was found to be doubtful. It
is submitted that the Deputy Director of Education had asked the certificate
issuing authority ie, M/s Sarika Electricals and Contractors, Nagpur to submit
the muster roll and the other relevant documents so as to consider whether the
petitioner had actually gained the experience. It is submitted that after going
through the papers tendered by M/s Sarika Electricals and Contractors,
Nagpur, the Deputy Director thought that it was doubtful whether the
petitioner possessed the requisite experience and whether the experience
certificate was properly issued. It is submitted that after rejecting the
experience certificate tendered by the petitioner as being doubtful, the
WP.3955.01
Deputy Director rightly granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner
as an Instructor with effect from 12.07.1995 after counting his experience as
an Instructor in Raosaheb Thaware Junior College.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the
Deputy Director was not justified in granting approval to the appointment of
the petitioner with effect from 12.07.1995 instead of 09.07.1992 merely
because the Deputy Director had a doubt about the correctness or otherwise
of the experience certificate. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor on
09.07.1992 and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was
either not qualified to hold the post or that the appointment of the petitioner
was not made after following the due procedure for selection. The only
objection of the respondent-Deputy Director is that the experience certificate
possessed by the petitioner is doubtful. The Deputy Director had a doubt
whether the petitioner had actually rendered service of more than three years
with the Institution that had issued the experience certificate. Merely because
the Deputy Director had a doubt about the correctness of the experience
certificate, the Deputy Director could not have refused to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner with effect from 09.07.1992. The Management
had appointed the petitioner after verifying the experience certificate in the
year 1992. Merely because there was some doubt in the mind of the education
authority in regard to the experience gained or possessed by the petitioner,
the Deputy Director could not have refused to grant approval to the
WP.3955.01
petitioner's appointment with effect from 09.07.1992. There is no document
to show that the Deputy Director was firmly of the view that the certificate
produced by the petitioner was false or fabricated or that the petitioner did
not possess the experience of three years, as required. The Deputy Director
could not have rejected the proposal for grant of approval with effect from
09.07.1992 only on the basis of the doubt that the certificate produced by the
petitioner was not genuine and petitioner did not possess the requisite
experience. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary for the
Deputy Director to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with
effect from 09.07.1992, when the petitioner was appointed on probation after
following the due process of selection. The Deputy Director was not justified
in counting the experience of the petitioner in Raosaheb Thaware Junior
College as the requisite experience and granting him approval with effect
from 12.07.1995. It would be necessary for the Deputy Director of Vocational
Eduction and Training to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner
with effect from 09.07.1992 as the petitioner possessed the necessary
educational qualifications for holding the post of an Instructor on the date of
his appointment on 09.07.1992.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training is directed to grant approval to the appointment of
the petitioner with effect from 09.07.1992, in accordance with law.
WP.3955.01
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
