Bombay High Court
Benedict Denis Kinny vs Tulip Brian Miranda And 7 Ors on 2 May, 2019
Author: Bharati H. Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H. Dangre
5-rpwl-20-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 20 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3673 OF 2018
Benedict Denis Kinny ..Petitioner
V/s.
Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr.C.K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner.
Mr.Tulip Misquitta, Respondent No.1-present in person.
Mrs.K.H. Mastakar for the Respondent-MCGM.
----
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 02nd MAY 2019 P.C.
1. The present Review Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the review of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.3673 of 2018 on 02.04.2019.
2. We have heard Mr.Bhangoji appearing for the review petitioner. He has invited our attention to the judgment and the observations of this Court in relation to Writ Petition No.3673 of 2018. Shri.Bhangoji, would submit that this Court had fallen into N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 01:19:47 ::: 5-rpwl-20-2019 the error since no declaration was granted in favour of the petitioner that she belongs to particular caste and the matter was remitted back to the Committee for reconsideration. However, there are certain observations which lead to such declaration and therefore under review, the same is required to be corrected. It is also argued by Shri.Bhangoji that in light of the finding recorded by the Court that proviso to Section 5B is mandatory, the petitioner could not have been continued on the post of counselor.
3. On perusal of the said judgment we have noted that we have partly allowed Writ Petition No.3673 of 2018. However, in the operative portion of the said order the word "partly" is not inadvertently typed and therefore we correct and rectify the said mistake in paragraph No.47 in relation to the Writ Petition No.3673 of 2018. Further paragraph No.57 also needs a correction and we substitute the following portion in the said paragraph:-
"The claim of the petitioners has been found to be improperly rejected and we have quashed and set aside the said order and given a declaration to the effect that they belong to the caste which they claim and hence should continue to hold the said post. Pursuant to their election, in light of the said aforesaid position, the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.145/018 and 3673/2018 N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 01:19:47 ::: 5-rpwl-20-2019 are entitled to continue in their seats since the effect of disqualification was postponed by an interim order and we have now quashed and set aside the impugned order."
The said portion now read thus :-
"The claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.145/2018 has been found to be improperly rejected and we have quashed and set aside the said order and declared that the petitioner belong to the caste which is claimed. Whereas in Writ Petition No.3673 of 2018 we have remanded the matter back for reconsideration and hence the petitioners in these petitions should continue to hold the said post. Pursuant to their election, in light of the aforesaid position. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.145/2018 and 3673/2018 are entitled to continue in their seats since the effect of disqualification is postponed by an interim order and since we have allowed Writ Petition No.145 of 2018 and partly allowed Writ Petition No.3673 of 2018."
4. As regards the contention of Shri.Bhangoji that once the requirement of the submission of validity certificate is held to be mandatory, the petitioner cannot continue on the post. We are not impressed by the submission, since we have categorically held that by way of an interim order, the petitioner was already holding the post and since we have remitted the matter back to the Committee N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 01:19:47 ::: 5-rpwl-20-2019 for reconsideration, in light of the documents submitted by the petitioner and have directed the Committee to reassess those documents, we have not closed upon the claim of the petitioner as belonging to the caste which she claims since, we have remanded the matter back for reconsideration. We are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner is not yet rejected and therefore she is entitled to continue on the post of counsellor.
With these observations and the substitution to the above effect the judgment dated 02.04.2019, we dismiss the review petition. No order as to costs.
(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 01:19:47 :::