Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs Shri. Jitendra Dattatraya Gundal on 6 September, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2014
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Jitendra Dattatraya Gundal .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Vishal Thadani AGP for the State / Petitioners
Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar Advocate for the Respondent
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3. The respondent was appointed on 16.3.2012 as a Clerk-
cum-Typist on compassionate ground in the office of
Petitioner No. 3 - The Executive Engineer, Mechanical
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 7
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
Division No. 1, Dapodi, Pune 411 012. Condition No. 18 in the
appointment order dated 16.3.2012 mentions that the
respondent to produce the Government Commercial
Certificate for Marathi typewriting with speed of 30 W.P.M.
and English typewriting with speed of 40 W.P.M. within a
period of six months failing which the respondent would be
terminated. It is the case of the petitioners that the
respondent did not produce the necessary certificates within
six months, hence, he came to be terminated.
4. The respondent then preferred O.A. before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging condition
No. 18 of the appointment order dated 16.3.2012 as well as
G.R. dated 6.12.2010 on which the said condition was based.
The condition as stated earlier was that the respondent to
produce the Government Commercial Certificate for Marathi
typewriting with speed of 30 W.P.M. and English typewriting
with speed of 40 W.P.M. within a period of six months failing
which the respondent would be terminated. As the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 7
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
respondent did not comply Condition No. 18 of his
appointment order, his services came to be terminated on
3.1.2013.
5. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that he
did appear for both Marathi and English typewriting
examinations on 28.12.2012. He communicated this fact to
the petitioner and also had prayed for extension of time to
submit the said certificates, however, as stated earlier, his
services came to be terminated on 3.1.2013. It may be
stated that the respondent was successful in Marathi as well
as English typewriting examinations which results were
declared on 10.3.2012.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on
the decisions of this Court dated 14.3.2013 passed in Writ
Petition Nos. 4872 of 2012 (Sachin s/o. Vitthalrao Kshirsagar
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) a/w Writ Petition No.
6676 of 2012 (Gajanan s/o. Khandu Sahane Vs. The State of
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 7
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
Maharashtra & Ors.). In the said decision, this Court was
considering the case of two Clerks-cum-Typists who were
appointed on compassionate basis and their services came
to be terminated solely on the ground that they had not
passed the said examinations within a period of two years
from the date of joining. In the said case, it was pointed out
that they had already appeared for the said examinations
but the results were not declared before the termination
order. This Court held that the petitioners therein ought not
to have been terminated without even waiting for the results
of the said examinations, hence, in the interest of justice,
their termination orders were set aside and they were
directed to be reinstated. Learned counsel for the
respondent further pointed out that the order of this Court in
Writ Petition Nos. 4872 of 2012 and 6676 of 2012 was upheld
by the Supreme Court by its order dated 10.7.2013.
7. The respondent had specifically challenged the G.R.
dated 6.12.2010 wherein it is stated that the applicants who
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 7
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
have been appointed on compassionate grounds will have to
produce Government Commercial Certificate for typewriting
speed within a period of six months instead of the normal
period of two years in other cases. The respondent had also
challenged Condition No. 18 of the appointment order which
states that the applicant to produce the said certificates
within six months otherwise his services will be terminated.
It is seen that in all other cases of appointment to the post of
Clerk-cum-Typist, the condition is that they had to produce
the typewriting certificate within a period of two years
whereas in the case of appointment on compassionate
ground, the period has been reduced to six months instead
of the normal period of two years. We find this to be
absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. We cannot
find any rational with regard to keeping time limit as six
months for producing the certificates as far as the employees
who are appointed on compassionate ground and for keeping
time limit of two years for those who are otherwise
appointed. We see no reason why a person appointed on
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 7
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
compassionate basis has to produce the passing certificate
of typewriting examination within six months whereas the
others can produce the said certificate within a period of two
years. The condition of producing the said certificates in six
months is very onerous and almost impossible to achieve.
The reason being that typewriting examinations are held
only twice a year i.e in May and November. In order to be
eligible to appear for the examination, a person has to
undergo training for four months. In such case, for example,
a candidate who is selected in February, March, April or May
can appear for the examination in November, by which time,
the period of six months would be over. Moreover, it is not
as if results for any examination is declared in that month
itself. The results are also invariably declared after about 2
& 1/2 - 3 months by which time, the six months period would
be over. This would be the situation even if a person joins in
any month of the year.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 7
1. civil wp 3655-14.doc
8. Looking to the facts of this case, the Tribunal rightly
observed that the G.R. dated 6.12.2010 is absolutely
irrational, unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. In view of the above facts, we find
no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. At this
stage, it may also be stated that by G.R. dated 20.5.2015,
the period mentioned of six months in the G.R. dated
6.12.2010 to produce the typewriting examination
certificates has been extended to two years. This was done
as it is impossible to obtain such certificate in six months.
The said G.R. dated 20.5.2015 is taken on record and
marked 'X' for identification. In view of the above facts,
Rule is discharged.
[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 7
