2017(6) ALL MR 621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
Pravin s/o. Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, MSRTC & Anr.
Writ Petition No.4556 of 2016
23rd January, 2017.
Petitioner Counsel: Shri S.A. NERKAR
Respondent Counsel: Shri V.G. WANKHEDE
Constitution of India, Art.226 - Selection to the post of clerk-typist - Equivalence of qualification - Contention that as per GR dt.28/2/2007, qualification of Hindi Visharad conferred upon petitioner by Bambai Hindi Vidyapeeth is equivalent to B.A. Degree therefore petitioner entitled to participate in selection process as graduate person - Whereas as per parent GR dt.14/6/1999 equivalence is only for subject of Hindi and qualification cannot be treated as graduate qualification equivalent to degree conferred by other Universities - Also that equivalence is valid only when the holder thereof applies for employment as Hindi teacher - GR dt.28/2/2007 does not change said conditions - It only adds certain other qualifications conferred by Bambai Vidyapeeth - Therefore, no interference with selection process. WP/6505/2013 Held, not binding precedent. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 10)
Cases Cited:
Pawan Subhash Marale Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and others, W.P. No.6505/2013, Dt.09.07.2014, (Aur) [Para 4,6]
Vijay Rai Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Nagpur, 2014 I CLR 348 [Para 5,6,7]
JUDGMENT
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. :- Heard finally learned Advocate Shri Nerkar for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Wankhede for the respondents by issuing rule & making it returnable forthwith.
2. The submission of learned Advocate Shri Nerkar for the petitioner is : Qualification of Hindi Visharad conferred upon the petitioner by 'Bambai Hindi Vidyapeeth' is equivalent to B.A. degree and therefore the petitioner is entitled to participate in the selection process as a graduate person.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondents are conducting the selection process for the post of Clerk-Typist (Junior) and for that post graduate is the essential qualification.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is placing reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 28-02-2007 and the judgment delivered at High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6505 of 2013 (Pawan Subhash Marale vrs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and others) on 09-07-2014, to urge that, in the light of the said Government Resolution, the qualification conferred by the above mentioned Hindi Vidyapeeth is equivalent to a degree of any other University.
5. Learned Advocate Shri Wankhede for the respondents invites our attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Rai vrs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Nagpur reported at 2014 I CLR 348 to urge that, thereafter considering all the relevant Government Resolutions, this Court has found that the equivalence is only when the holder of such qualification applies for the post of teacher in Hindi language.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the reported judgment in the case of Vijay Rai (supra) is delivered on 12-11-2013 while the judgment at High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6505 of 2013 (supra) is delivered on 09-07-2014 and therefore recent and binding.
7. The judgment at High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6505 of 2013 delivered on 09-07-2014, does not look into the reported judgment in the case of Vijay Rai (supra), delivered on 12-11-2013. One of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to that judgment. There, after considering all the relevant Government Resolutions this Court has found that the parent Government Resolution dated 14-06-1999 itself contains certain conditions and equivalence recognized is subject to those limitations. First condition is that; the equivalence is only for the subject of Hindi and the qualification cannot be treated as graduate qualification equivalent to a degree conferred by the other Universities. By second condition, it is stipulated that, this equivalence is valid only when the holder thereof applies for the employment as a Hindi teacher.
8. The Government Resolution dated 28-02-2007 only adds certain other qualifications conferred by the 'Bambai Hindi Vidyapeeth' (Mumbai Hindi Vidyapeeth) & it does not change the above mentioned conditions. On the contrary, while clause no.2 it reiterates that, all the terms and conditions of the above mentioned Government Resolution dated 14-06-1999 also apply to the courses which are recognized and equivalent for the first time on 28-02-2007.
9. The attention of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad was not invited to the basic Government Resolution dated 14-06-1999 and only after perusal of Government Resolution dated 23-08-2011 effecting the similar amendment, the particular view has been taken. Moreover copy of Government Resolution dated 23-08-2011 is not made available by the learned Advocate for our perusal.
10. As the basic Government Resolution dated 14-06-1999 is very clear, it is apparent that, the view taken at High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, cannot be taken tobe a binding precedent.
11. No case is made out warranting interference, Writ Petition is rejected. No costs.