Bombay High Court
Vishnu S/O Dattatraya Thite And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 21 April, 2023
Bench: S. M. Modak
2023:BHC-AS:12360-DB
1.rpw85.22.doc
Shiv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.85 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8721 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18564 OF 2022 IN RPW 85/2022
Vishnu Dattatraya Thite & Ors. ... Petitioners/
Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary School Examination
Department and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.21691 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8145 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLN. ST.NO.21694 OF 2022 IN RPW ST.21691/2022
Smt. Heena Bhausa Divekar & Ors. ... Petitioners/
Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary School Examination
Department and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.21700 OF 2022
IN
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2023 01:32:24 :::
1.rpw85.22.doc
WRIT PETITION NO.8143 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLN. ST.NO.21703 OF 2022 IN RPW ST.21700/2022
Sandip Bhimrao Patil & Ors. ... Petitioners/
Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary School Examination
Department and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.21705 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7755 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLN. ST.NO.19504 OF 2022 IN RPW ST.21705/2022
Priyanka Shivram Dhobale & Ors. ... Petitioners/
Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary School Examination
Department and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel h/f Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar
for the Petitioners/Applicants.
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Counsel with Vinayak R. Kumbhar i/b
Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.10 in RP No.85/2022.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP with Mr. M. M. Pabale AGP, Mr. R. A. Salunkhe
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in PPW (St.) No.21705/2022.
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2023 01:32:24 :::
1.rpw85.22.doc
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 21 APRIL 2023
P.C. :
Interim Application No.18564 of 2022 :
1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for the
Applicants, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.10 and Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader for
the Respondent-State.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, it is allowed. The
delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
Review Petition No.85/2022, RP (St.) Nos.21691/2022,
No.21700/2022 & 21705/2022
3. The review petitioners seek review of the judgment and order
passed by this Court dated 20th June 2022.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court
had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners on the count
that the name of the Petitioners are not entered in Pavitra Portal.
1.rpw85.22.doc
These petitioners were appointed in 2001-2002. As on the said date
there was no Pavitra Portal in operation, the names of the petitioners
were not entered in Pavitra Portal as such would not be relevant in
present matter. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in fact
the Respondent-institution is a mighty institution and the institution
ought to have considered the case of the Petitioners alike with others
where the consent terms were filed in earlier Writ Petition bearing
Writ Petition No.2549 of 2018 along with connected Writ Petitions.
5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
petitioners had been working since 2016-2017 also and they had
also appeared in walk-in-interview, and only because the
appointment order is not issued that should not come in the way of
the petitioners.
6. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent
No.10-institution submitted that these petitioners were not working
in the academic year 2016-2017. If these petitioners were working in
the year 2016-2017, their names would have been included in the
seniority list. Even it is not the case of the review petitioners, in
present review petition, that these petitioners were working in the
year 2016-2017.
7. We have considered the submissions in paragraph 8 of the order
1.rpw85.22.doc
under review. We had recorded statement of learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners appearing then, that the names of the petitioners
do not appear in Pavitra Portal.
8. In case the petitioners are appointed earlier in point of time
then certainly not entering their names in Pavitra Portal will not be
relevant. Paragraph 8 of the order would not affect the rights of
parties, who are appointed prior to Pavitra Portal in operation.
9. The Writ Petitions were filed basically for regularisation. The
petitioners are working since 2009. Some of the petitioners were
working even prior to that. The petitioners were appointed through
walk in interview and not through regular constituted selection
committee. In view of that the question for regularisation does not
arise. The petitioners thereafter claimed parity with those persons
who had not filed Writ Petition but were kept in the seniority list,
pursuant to the consent terms in Writ Petition No.2549 of 2018 and
connected Writ Petitions. The relevant paragraph of the consent
terms relied upon while deciding Writ Petition and reproduced in the
order reads thus :
"3. After the Petitioners would be reinstated as
mentioned herein above, the Respondent - Management
shall prepare a combined list of all the
1.rpw85.22.doc
Petitioners,working on temporary and Clock House Basis.
The said combined seniority list shall also include the
name of other Teachers, who have not fled similar Writ
Petitions in this Hon'ble Court against the Management,
but who were in service under the Respondent -
Management till the Academic Year 2016-2017. The
seniority of the Petitioners shall be on the basis of the
date of their initial appointment under the Respondent -
Management. Such a seniority list shall be prepared by
the Respondent - Management within a period of 6
weeks from today and thereafter the same shall be
published on the website of the Management and it shall
also be circulated amongst all the Petitioners for
verification and confirmation, and the Petitioners shall
sign the said combined seniority list in token of having
accepted the same within a period of 15 days.
After the Petitioners would be reinstated as
mentioned herein above, the Respondent No.3 shall
prepare a combine seniority list from A.Y. 1990 to A.Y.
2016-2017 of all the Petitioners as well as of those
Teachers who have not fled the Writ Petitions, but who
were actually in service in the A.R. 2016-2017."
1.rpw85.22.doc
10. For the petitioners to seek parity with those persons, who are
agreed to be placed in seniority list, it was incumbent that they are in
services in the academic year 2016-2017. From the chart filed along
with review petition, it no where transpires that the petitioners were
in service in the academic year 2016-2017. In the review petition
also, statement is made that the petitioners had appeared in walk in
interview but there is no further statement that they were appointed
for the year 2016-2017. In the chart produced along with review
petition, there are some who were working prior to 2016-2017 and
there were some who have worked after 2016-2017. However, the
genesis of the consent terms in Writ Petition No.2549 of 2018 with
connected Writ Petitions is that those persons working in the
academic year 2016-2017, their names were to be kept in seniority
list.
11. In the view of that there is no material before us to conclude
that the petitioners were in service in the academic year 2016-2017.
In absence thereof it would not be possible to accept the contention
of the petitioners.
12. In the light of that, no case is made out by the review
petitioners. Review petitions are dismissed with no costs.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
