Bombay High Court
Surekha Sharad Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
WP 11187/15 & others
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11187/2015
Surekha Sharad Patil (Khairnar),
age 38 yrs., occu.service,
r/o 309/3, Hanuman Nagar,
Near Mahadev Temple, Shirur Naka,
Amalner. Dist.Jalgaon.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Surface Transport,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2] Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Ltd., through
Divisional Controller, Divisional
Office, Jalgaon Division,
Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon.
...Respondents...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WRIT PETITION NO.11189/2015
Prashant s/o Suresh Lad,
age 35 yrs., occu.service,
r/o Plot No.19 Gut No.52/1,
Shiv Colony, Jalgaon.
Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Surface Transport,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:58:13 :::
WP 11187/15 & others
- 2 -
2] Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Ltd., through
Divisional Controller, Divisional
Office, Jalgaon Division,
Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon.
...Respondents...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WRIT PETITION NO.11195/2015
Vaishali w/o Pradeep Tapre (Pingle),
age 35 yrs., occu.service,
r/o Satti Bazaar, at post
Nashirabad. Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Surface Transport,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2] Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Ltd., through
Divisional Controller, Divisional
Office, Jalgaon Division,
Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon.
...Respondents...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri V.S. Badakh, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for respondent no.2.
.....
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE: 12.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.) :
WP 11187/15 & others
- 3 -
1] Heard learned counsel appearing for parties. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for
final disposal at this stage.
2] We are inclined to dispose of all these petitions by
a common order as identical issues / facts are involved,
so also the prayers against the same respondents.
3] All petitioners have challenged show cause notice
dated 19/21.10.2015 issued by respondents whereby their
explanation is called as to why their services should not
be terminated for want of qualification in question.
4] This Court has issued notice to respondents and also
protected the services of petitioners who have been
appointed on respective posts on compassionate ground
based upon the degrees which they possess.
5] Similar issue was raised earlier in various other
petitions. This Court on 30.7.2014 in the case of Pawan
Subhash Marale v. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Mumbai & others in Writ Petition
No.6503/2013, after considering rival submissions and the
Government resolution, has recorded as under:-
"3. We have perused the Government Resolution
WP 11187/15 & others
- 4 -
and its corrigendum dated 14.06.1999, which has
unequivocally laid down that the degree of
Sahitya Sudhakar issued by the Bombay Hindi
University is equivalent to B.A. degree and this
equivalence is applicable for appointment in
State Government and Corporations as per G.R.
dated 28.02.2007."
6] The submission is, therefore, in view of above
judgment, the similar / same degrees held by petitioners
are required to be held as degrees from recognized
University and, therefore, there is no question of
terminating their services so referred in the show cause
notice.
7] Submission is also made, referring to another order
passed by this Court on 10.12.2015 in Writ Petition
No.5901/2015 wherein to the similar challenge, another
Division Bench, accepting the finding given by the
Division Bench in Pawan Subhash Marale (supra),
reinforced that the degree issued by the Bambai Hindi
Vidyapeeth Bambai is equivalent and, therefore, directed
respondents to consider the cases of such persons for the
WP 11187/15 & others
- 5 -
posts in question.
8] In Writ Petition No.9879/2015, another Division
Bench by order dated 4.12.2016, by following above
judgments, even set aside the termination order issued by
respondents by overlooking the judgments / orders passed
by this Court.
9] In the present case, as noted, in spite of above
factual position and in spite of orders passed by this
Court, respondents again threatened to terminate the
services of petitioners by issuing show cause notice.
This, in our view, is unacceptable position and
specifically when respondents have not even considered
and/or referred the orders passed by this Court so
recorded above. After perusing the show cause notice, it
is clear that there is no reason whatsoever reflected,
referring to the orders passed by this Court, therefore,
we are inclined to permit petitioners to reply to the
show cause notice within two weeks. Respondents to deal
with the said reply as early as possible and preferably
within four weeks and give reasons before taking any such
coercive steps against petitioners. This Court would
like to pass appropriate orders once the reasons are
WP 11187/15 & others
- 6 -
reflected in the order based upon the said show cause
notice considering the judgments / orders passed by this
Court so recorded above. Unless specific reasons and/or
case is made out, all concerned are bound to follow the
judgments / orders passed by the Court on similarly
placed facts and circumstances and the interpretation so
given by the orders of this Court.
10] It is made clear that the interim order passed by
this Court to continue till the decision of respondents
and shall continue further four weeks if still adverse
order is passed against petitioners.
11] Taking overall view of the matter and to void
further complication and to avoid respondents to take
coercive action against petitioners, who are otherwise
eligible, having in possession of qualified service and
degree as recognized by the concerned University and as
confirmed by this Court, there is no question of
terminating the services of petitioners in such a
fashion. Therefore, this order.
ORDER
12] Petitioners to file representations to the show
cause notice within two weeks.
WP 11187/15 & others
- 7 -
13] Respondents to deal with the same and pass reasoned
order as early as possible and preferably within four
weeks.
14] The interim order passed by this Court shall
continue till the decision by respondents and if adverse
order is passed against petitioners, the interim order to
continue to operate for a period of four weeks further
from the date of communication of adverse order, if any,
to petitioners.
15] All these petitions are accordingly disposed of with
liberty to petitioners. No costs.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
ndk/c126172.doc
