High Court
Legal Reasoning
2 952.CA.8038.25.odtfacts brought to our notice on behalf of the Applicants.4.We find that the Original Petitioner was appointed on the saidpost on 18.03.2009 on the basis of his being a candidate having low visionand obviously on the basis of suffering from such disability.5.The appointment order itself includes terms and conditions,which show that the appointment was on probation for a period of twoyears and that the appointed candidates, including the Petitioner, wouldhave to undergo medical examination upon such appointment. 6.It is pointed out on behalf of the applicants that after thePetitioner underwent medical examination pursuant to his appointment, itcame to the fore that he was suffering from 30% disability as opposed to40% disability shown in the document relied upon by him while securingthe appointment. It is an admitted position that 40% disability was thenorm. In the face of the aforesaid factual position, a show cause noticewas issued to the Petitioner on 07.02.2011. Although the Petitionerappears to have responded to the show cause notice, before any furtherprecipitate action could be taken in the matter, the Petitioner approachedthis Court by filing Writ Petition No.5290/2018 praying for a direction tothe applicants to decide his representation and further a direction to theapplicants to issue a certificate of completion of probation and for releaseof increment. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated06.06.2018 upholding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of 3 952.CA.8038.25.odtapplicants that the Petitioner ought to approach the MaharashtraAdministrative Tribunal (MAT) for relief. The petition was disposed offor the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.7.In that light, the Petitioner filed Original Application (ST)No.924/2018 before MAT, which was disposed of by an order dated05.07.2018 issuing a direction to the applicants herein to decide therepresentations of the Petitioner. 8.It appears that the Petitioner had filed a contempt petitionbefore the MAT, which was subsequently disposed of on 03.12.2019 byrejecting the same. In that backdrop, the Petitioner filed Writ PetitionNo.2831/2020 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of with adirection to the applicants to decide the representations of the Petitioner.In the said petition also the Petitioner filed Contempt PetitionNo.342/2021, which was disposed of by an order dated 20.10.2021. Bythe said order a Division Bench of this Court gave a specific direction tothe Petitioner to remain present before the Medical Board of Sir J.J.Hospital at Mumbai on 01.11.2021 to get himself examined by theMedical Board. This direction, according to us, is crucial in the facts andcircumstances of the present case, for the reason that paragraph No.7 ofthe said order records that depending on further events liberty wasreserved for the parties to take further steps.9.The Petitioner did appear before the Medical Board and as 4 952.CA.8038.25.odtper the disability certificate placed on record along with this applicationby the applicants, we find that the Medical Board found the percentage ofdisability of the Petitioner as only 30%. This reinforced the document,which in the first place had resulted in show cause notice dated 07.02.2011being issued by the applicants to the Petitioner.10.It is in this backdrop that the Petitioner filed the instantpetition. Perusal of the prayer clauses of the present petition show that theinitial prayer clauses are identical to the prayers made on behalf of thePetitioner in his first writ petition filed before this Court i.e. Writ PetitionNo.5290/2018, which was disposed of by asking the Petitioner toapproach the MAT on the ground of alternative remedy. The presentPetition seeks further reliefs and it is on the basis of the further reliefssought in present petition that the learned counsel for the Petitioner isseeking to justify filing of this petition directly without first approachingthe MAT. Be that as it may, on 06.02.2023, this Court passed the interimorder in favour of the Petitioner. A perusal of the said order indicates thatthe Medical Certificate issued by the Board, pursuant to the Petitionerappearing before the Board, as per direction issued in the contemptpetition was not available. In the absence of the said document, this Courtappears to have carried an impression that the Petitioner was beingcontinued unabated as a probationer from the very date of his appointmenti.e. 24.03.2009 and in that backdrop certain observations were made, 5 952.CA.8038.25.odtleading to the interim direction granted in favour of the Petitioner. 11.We are of the opinion that if the Disability Certificate atExh-X-3 with the present civil application was before this Court, perhapsthe interim direction would not have been issued.12.When we probed further into the matter, we realized that thePetitioner is seeking adjudication from this Court on the aspect of 40%blindness Vs. 30% blindness and about the marginal error of 10%blindness, primarily on the basis of a document filed at Exhibit - W alongwith the petition. The said document is nothing but an article written in amedical journal which can hardly be said to be material that can lead toany concrete findings by this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.13.In any case, the Petitioner will have to make efforts toconvince this Court to even consider prayer clause ‘F’ in the presentpetition.14.The document at Exh - X-3 in the present applicationreinforces the serious doubt raised by the applicants while issuing showcause notice as far back as on 07.02.2011 to the Petitioner. Since then thePetitioner has been approaching either this Court or the MAT andembroiling the applicants in litigation while continuing in the said post.15.We are of the opinion that the Petitioner will have to makeefforts firstly to convince this Court regarding maintainability of the writpetition in the face of the alternative remedy of approaching the MAT and 6 952.CA.8038.25.odtin any case, further efforts would have to be made to demonstrate how thisCourt in writ jurisdiction can entertain prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘F’ asframed in the present petition.16.We are of the opinion that the applicants have made out a casefor vacating the interim order granted on 06.02.2023.17.It is relevant to note that the applicants in their reply affidavitfiled in the present petition, as far back as on 14.03.2023, had indeedannexed the Disability Certificate at Annexure R-20 issued by the MedicalBoard pursuant to the Petitioner appearing before the Board in the light ofthe order passed in the contempt petition by the Division Bench of thisCourt. Till date, the Petitioner has not responded to the same by way ofrejoinder or any other affidavit.18.Hence, we are convinced that this application deserves to beallowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed and interim order dated06.02.2023 is vacated.19.List the writ petition for hearing on 09.09.2025. Needless tosay the Petitioner, if he so chooses, may file a rejoinder affidavit in thewrit petition within four weeks from today. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)habeeb/
Arguments
1 952.CA.8038.25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL APPLICATION NO.8038 OF 2025 IN WP/1283/2023WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1283 OF 2023STATE OF MAHARASHTRA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT AND OTHERSVERSUSSUNIL RANGNATH JOSHI AND OTHERS...AGP for Applicants : Ms. Neha B. KambleAdvocate for Respondents : Mr. G.L. DeshpandeAdvocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 : Mr. Mukul Kulkarni...CORAM: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 12.08.2025PER COURT: 1.Heard learned counsel for the Applicants (OriginalRespondent Nos.1 to 3) and the learned counsel for the Original Petitionerthat is Non-Applicant No.1 in this application.2.The applicants being State authorities have approached thisCourt for vacating interim order dated 06.02.2023 passed by this Court inthe writ petition, directing that the services of the Petitioner would not bedispensed with until further orders. It is on the basis of the said interimorder that the Petitioner has continued to work as a public prosecutor i.e.the post in which he was appointed. 3.We are inclined to vacate the interim order in the light of the