Balaji Hanumant Morale v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Mar 2016WP/6639/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment as a driver, rejected because his Secondary School Certificate was from Noida instead of New Delhi. Court held NIOS Noida is an MHRD institution and rejected the reason for exclusion.

What did the court decide?

Reasons for declaring petitioner unfit were quashed. Respondent directed to decide afresh within eight weeks treating NIOS Noida certificate as valid proof.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

1 20-WP6639-15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6639 OF 2015

¶4

Balaji s/o. Hanumant Morale,
Age Major, Occ.Driver,
r/o. At post Tambewadi,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad..Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2] The Chairman, Selection Committee, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Sangali Division, Sangali

¶8

3] The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Sangali Division, Sangali

¶9

4] Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi ..Respondents

¶10

Mr.P.B.Gapat, advocate for petitioner

¶11

Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent no.1 – State

Balaji Hanumant Morale Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶25

qualifications for appointment to the post of
Driver. Therefore, he applied for the said post.
Respondent no.2 conducted written examination. The
petitioner passed the said examination, and his
name is included in the select list at Serial
No.550. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for
verification of the documents by respondent No.3.
During the course of verification of documents,
the petitioner was told by respondent no.2 that,
he possesses Secondary School Certificate, issued
by National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida,
which institute is not recognised by respondent
no.4. Therefore, the petitioner was considered
unfit for the said post for the aforesaid reason
and also for the reasons which are mentioned in
the Screening Committee report.

¶29

compilation of the Writ Petition, and submitted
that though the said institution is located at
Noida, it is an autonomous institution under MHRD,
Government of India and also Noida region comes
under NCR. Learned counsel further invited our
attention to page 11 of the compilation of the
Writ Petition and submitted that the petitioner
has been declared 'Pass' in the Secondary School
Examination conducted by the said Board.

¶31

wherein, in clause 2, it is mentioned that the
candidates who have passed Secondary School
Certificate examination from the National Open
Schooling University, New Delhi, should be
considered eligible for appointment to the posts

¶35

7]On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no.3, relying upon the averments in
the affidavit-in-reply and contents of impugned
communication, submitted that the certificate
produced by the petitioner is of National
Institute of Open Schooling, Noida and not from an
institute at New Delhi, and therefore, the
petitioner's candidature for the post of Driver
has been rightly rejected. He further submits that
the petitioner also did not fulfill the other two
requirements which are mentioned in the Screening
Committee's report.

¶38

on instructions from the Officer who is present in
the Court, submitted that the National Institute
of Open Schooling at Noida, is also a recognised
institution of the Government of India and
therefore, there was no reason for respondent
no.2, to reject the candidature of the petitioner
for the post of Driver on the ground that the said
institute is not situated in New Delhi.

¶39

9]We have given careful consideration to the
submissions of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.3 and learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.4. With their able assistance, we

¶43

documents placed on record, it appears that the
said certificate is issued by the National
Institute of Open Schooling, situated at Noida, an
autonomous institution under MHRD, Government of
India. In the said certificate, it is mentioned
that the said institution is situated at Noida
(NCR). The copy of passing certificate is also
placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, it
appears that the petitioner possesses requisite
qualification for appointment to the post of
Driver, however, according to respondent no.2, the
said institution is not situated in New Delhi and
therefore, the said certificate had not been
accepted.

¶44

11]In our opinion, since the National Institute
of Open Schooling, Noida, is an autonomous
institution under MHRD, Government of India and
even according to learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.4 – Union of India, the said

¶48

12]So far as the other two grounds which are
mentioned in the screening test report are
concerned, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, on instructions, undertakes to
resubmit the copies of the relevant documents
within a period of two weeks from today before
respondent no.3.

¶49

13]In the light of the discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs, the reasons assigned by
respondent no.3 to declare the present petitioner
unfit for the post of Driver are quashed and set
aside. Respondent no.3 is directed to take a
decision afresh regarding appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Driver, within a period
of eight weeks from today, however, without

¶51

raising a query about the certificate issued by
the National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida,
and shall treat the said certificate as a valid
proof of passing of Secondary School Examination
by the petitioner.

Balaji Hanumant Morale v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpa Balasaheb Murkute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yuvraj Patilba Andhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramodini Prabhakar Parkhe and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Hanumant Morale v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpa Balasaheb Murkute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yuvraj Patilba Andhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramodini Prabhakar Parkhe and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

A compact analysis

Coram