Bombay High Court
Suresh Dagadu Chaure vs Union Of India Thr. Secretary And ... on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
29.485.21-wp.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.485 OF 2021
Ganesh Trambak Patole .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18317 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.485 OF 2021
Yogesh Madhukar Mandave & Ors. .. Applicants
Vs.
Ganesh Trambak Patole & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2021
Bhausaheb Kacharu Jundre .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.483 OF 2021
Shankar Bhagwan Palde .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3207 OF 2020
Pandharinath Sukdev Gawande .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6474 OF 2021
Dinkar Ashok Patole .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6473 OF 2021
Basavraj 1/9
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2023 01:48:03 :::
29.485.21-wp.docx
Punam Kumari .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6472 OF 2021
Manoj Prabhakar Shinde .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3904 OF 2021
Pravin Shivaji Gawali .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3219 OF 2020
Rajesh Bhikari Pardhe .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.398 OF 2021
Santosh Digambar Kshirsagar .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 2021
Shubham Laxman Waghchoure .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3223 OF 2020
Basavraj 2/9
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2023 01:48:03 :::
29.485.21-wp.docx
Yogesh Pandurang Chavanke .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5522 OF 2021
Sachin Chandrakant Satre .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5527 OF 2021
Sachin Govind Adke .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5528 OF 2021
Suresh Dagadu Chaure .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 17214 OF 2021
Vinod Kumar s/o Hazari Lal .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 18657 OF 2021
Sagar Nana Borale .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Basavraj 3/9
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2023 01:48:03 :::
29.485.21-wp.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION ST. NO.18689 OF 2021
Sachin Kisan Patole .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and ors. ..
Respondents
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. Shubham Misar for
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 485/2021
Ms. Prachiti Deshpande for Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.
3904/2021, 3219/2020, 398/2021, 3905/2021, 5522/2021,
5527/2021, 5528/2021, WP(ST) Nos. 17214/2021 & 18657/2021.
Mr. Rahul Walia for Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3223/2020
Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for Petitioner in WP(ST) 18689/2021
Mr. Prashant D. Patil for Intervener in IA/18317/2022
Ms. Shilpab Talhar for Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 6474/2021,
6473/2021 & 6472/2021
Mr. R. R. Shetty a/w Mr. Prasenjit Khosla a/w Mr. A. A. Garge for
Respondents (UOI) in Writ Petition Nos. 3219/2020, 398/2021,
3905/2021, 3904/2021, 5522/2021, 5528/2021, 5527/2021,
3223/2020, 487/2021, 483/2021, 3207/2020, WP(ST) 18657/2021,
18689/2021, 17214/2021, IA No. 18317/2022 in Writ Petition No.
485/2021.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents in Writ Petition No. 3223/2020.
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : MARCH 21, 2023
ORAL ORDER : (PER : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Rule.
Rule is made returnable forthwith.
By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.
Basavraj 4/9
29.485.21-wp.docx
2. All these Petitioners assail the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dismissing their
Original Applications.
3. The Petitioners were selected and appointed as Multi Tasking
Staff (MTS) pursuant to the advertisement and selection process.
The said appointments orders were given on or about 9 th December
2016. On or about 19th November 2018 Respondent No.4 served
show cause notice upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why the
services of the Petitioners should not be terminated. The Petitioners
replied to the show cause notice. Respondent No.4 terminated the
services of the Petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners filed
Original Applications before the Tribunal. The said Original
Applications are dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present
petitions.
4. The services of the Petitioners were terminated allegedly on
the ground that upon a complaint being received alleging
irregularities in the selection process, a court of inquiry was ordered
on 28th August 2017 to investigate into the alleged improprieties /
irregularities. As per the Recruitment Policy applicable, the
skill/practical/physical test was only of qualifying nature and its
marks were not to be added in the final merit list. However, contrary
Basavraj 5/9
29.485.21-wp.docx
to the policy, the selection board did not fix the minimum qualifying
marks for skill/practical/physical test but added its marks while
preparing the final merit list. The selection board suffers from the
inconsistency, the procedure followed in the selection process, is not
conforming to the Rules.
5. The matter was heard finally by the Tribunal. The arguments
canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties were
quoted in the judgment.
6. Mr. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners
and also the learned Advocates for the respective Petitioners
canvassed their submissions. According to them, exhaustive
arguments were advanced and some of the arguments though
quoted by the Tribunal, no reasons are recorded for not accepting
the contentions of the Petitioners. The detailed arguments were
advanced about the selection process being conducted in free and
fair manner and in respect of other aspects but the same have not
been considered.
7. Mr. Shetty, the learned Counsel for the Respondents tried his
best to support the judgment of the Tribunal. On being confronted
about the reasons not appearing in the judgment, Mr.Shetty, the
learned Counsel for the Respondents was at pains to subscribe to the
Basavraj 6/9
29.485.21-wp.docx
judgment of the Tribunal.
8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
Senior Advocate and the learned Advocates for the respective
parties. We have also gone through the judgment.
9. Upto paragraph 12, facts of the case and the arguments
advanced by the respective counsel have been jotted down by the
Tribunal. The reasons appear to be only in paragraph Nos.13 and 14.
Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 are reproduced as under:
"13. The learned counsels for the parties have been
heard carefully. The applicants have pleaded that they
have suffered grievously. The learned counsel for the
respondents further assures that the respondents have
conducted the fresh selection without being prejudiced
by the applicants in the present OAs. We also do not find
anything wrong in the impugned orders of the
respondents wherein they have indicated the authority
to terminate the temporary appointment of the
applicants who were then on probation at the time of
termination and in which they have also cited reasons
and basis for the said termination orders.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, when the
findings of the Court of Inquiry, referred to herein above is
neither under challenge nor any reasons cited to question the
impartiality thereof, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid
OAs. It is also directed to the respondents that the decision of
the selection process may be taken forward for which the
previous interim order already granted in the matter stands
withdrawn. Accordingly, the aforesaid OAs are disposed of. No
order as to costs."
10. Perusal of the said order, it is manifest that no reasons are
Basavraj 7/9
29.485.21-wp.docx
recorded by the Tribunal. The arguments advanced by the parties
have not been dealt with while arriving at the final conclusion. No
reasons are appearing in the judgment as to why the case of the
Petitioners is not to be accepted and/or case of the Respondents is to
be accepted.
11. The reasons now are considered to be third limb of the
principles of natural justice. Reasons depict application of mind of
the Authority/Court passing the order. The reasons are the link
between the arguments and the conclusion drawn. The order /
judgment bereft of reasons cannot be sustained, as the same would
tantamount to non adherence to the principles of natural justice.
12. In light of the above, we set aside the impugned judgments and
relegate the parties before the Tribunal.
13. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10th April
2023. As the date for appearance is already given, it will not be
necessary for the Tribunal to issue fresh notices to the parties
concerned.
14. This Court, on 6th October 2021 had passed an interim order
wherein Respondent No.3 was at liberty to carry forward the fresh
selection process and to take the same to its logical conclusion;
Basavraj 8/9
29.485.21-wp.docx
however, orders of appointment shall not be issued to the selected
candidates without obtaining leave of this Court. Said interim order
would continue till final decision of the Original Applications before
the Tribunal.
15. Considering the long pendency of the matter, we request the
Tribunal to hear the Original Applications expeditiously.
16. It is made clear that we have not considered the merits of the
contentions of either parties and same are to be considered by the
Tribunal.
17. A request is made by the selected candidates for impleading
them as party. They may apply to the Tribunal for the said purpose.
18. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
19. The Writ Petitions are disposed of.
20. The Interim Application also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj 9/9
