Bombay High Court
Amit Rajendra Dongre And Another vs Ananta Narayan Nanda And Others on 4 May, 2018
Author: A. M. Dhavale
Bench: R. M. Borde, A. M. Dhavale
1 RA6.2018&Ors
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12117 OF 2016
1] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology,
Delhi.
2] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. ... Review Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1] Prakash S/o. Bhagaji Wani,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Chinchkheda, Post Maniknagar,
Tq. Sillod, Distrct Aurangabad.
2] Alkesh S/o Walmik Nikam,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Yeshwant Nagar, Pachor Road, Bhadgaon,
Tq. & District Jalgaon.
3] Vaibhav S/o Chandrakantrao Kulkarni,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Bhakti Construction, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4] Bhushan S/o Devidas Baviskar,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Kapadne, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
5] Digvijay S/o Ramdas Chaudhari,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Near Bajaj Poly College,
Balaji Ward, Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
2 RA6.2018&Ors
6] Vitthal S/o Gulabrao Khadse,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Hirdao, Tq. Lonar,
Dist. Buldhana.
7] Mahesh S/o Popat Gorgund,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Khare Krjune,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
8] Swati D/o Ashok Patil,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Vivekanand Colony, Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon.
9] Sandip S/o Sidheshwar Jitkar,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Mukundwadi, Aurangabad.
10] Rahul S/o Anandrao Patil,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Vivekanand Colony, Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon.
11] Imran Khan Majid Khan Pathan,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Girnar Colony, Bhadgaon,
Tq. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon.
12] Amol S/o. Gajanan Patil,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Korala Bajar, Tq. Motala,
District Buldhana.
13] Ashish S/o Bhagwan Shinde,
Age : 20 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Mehekar, Tq. Mehekar, District Buldhana.
14] Gautam S/o Sudama Kharat,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Anjani, Tq. Mehekar, District Buldhana.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
3 RA6.2018&Ors
15] Vinod S/o Shamrao Chandanshiv,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Anjani, Tq. Mehekar, District Buldhana.
16] Umaji S/o Satwaji Phole,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Talhari, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded.
17] Keshav S/o Sadashiv Shirade,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Ekghari, Post Savna, Tq. Himayatnagar,
District Nanded.
18] Kalyani D/o Chandrakant Jadhav,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Rangar Galli, Gulmandi, Tq. & District Aurangabad.
19] Gajanan S/o Suryakant Kande,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Ramnagar, Police Colony, Tq. & District Jalna.
20] Ravindra S/o Bhausaheb Pathare,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Satara Parisar, Tq. & District Aurangabad.
21] Kantaram S/o Gorakshnath Pawar,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Kalegaon, Tq. & District Beed.
22] Yogesh S/o Rajaram Rasal,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Bhanupwadi, Post Raymoha, Tq. Shiroor Kasar,
District Beed.
23] Sunita D/o Vishwanathrao Mali,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Pethwada, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded.
24] Ananda S/o Jemnaji Jinke,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Gadegaon, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
4 RA6.2018&Ors
25] Satish S/o Anandrao Patil,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Pangra, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded.
26] Govind S/o Raghunath Chavan,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Chidgiri, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded.
27] Vishwanath S/o Shivshankar Swami,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Lagaldood, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded.
28] Nagnath S/o Dnyanoba Pande,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Dhanora, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.
29] Gajanan S/o Tukaram More,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Panshewadi, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded.
30] Sachin S/o Yuvraj Shivre,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Bhoot Mungli, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur.
31] Rajebhau S/o Sangram Paltwad,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Supa, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.
32] Sanjiv S/o Bhihaji Gunjalkar,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Khudaj, Tq. Shangaon, District Hingoli.
33] Sainath S/o Pandurang Patale,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Kekat Umra, Tq. & District Washim.
34] Gopal S/o Vasudev Hembade,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Walana, Tq. Shengaon, District Hingoli.
35] Ishwar S/o Motiram Bamrule,
Age : 43 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Hastara, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
5 RA6.2018&Ors
36] Kiran S/o Balaji Pimparwar,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, District Latur.
37] Pravin S/o Trembak Arakh,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Savitribai Phule Nagar, Buldhana, District Buldhana.
38] Dnyaneshwar S/o Sarjerao Jadhav,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Dhekanmoha, Tq. & District Beed.
39] Pradip S/o Baburao Adhav,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Borgaon, Tq. Loha, District Nanded.
40] Manoj S/o Devlal Bramhane,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Manik Nagar, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad.
41] Kishor S/o Laxman Badgujar,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Pimpalkhed, Tq. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon.
42] Ganesh S/o Vitthal Mandurke,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, District Latur.
43] Dnyanba S/o Kishan Paul,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Parbhani, District Parbhani.
44] Ujwala S/o Bhimrao Bankar,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Milind Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad,
Tq. & District Aurangabad.
45] Shankar S/o Manohar Yerawar,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Dhaswadi, Post. Khandali, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
6 RA6.2018&Ors
46] Nitin S/o Laxmanrao Murkute,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Raiwadi, Tal. Chankur, District Latur.
47] Savita d/o Bhausaheb Kadam,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Raiwadi, Tal. Chakur, District Latur.
48] Savita d/o Bhausaheb Kadam,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Raiwadi, Tal. Chakur, District Latur.
49] Raju S/o Eknath Thale,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Chikalthana, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
50] Gajanan S/o Gangaram Bamrule,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Hastra, Tal. Hadgaon, District Nanded.
51] Kavita d/o Jaywant Ghantewar,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Gokul Nagar, Deglur, District Nanded.
52] Rahul s/o Masu Aher,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Umrad Jahagir, Tal. & Dist. Beed.
53] Bhagwan S/o Himatrao Pimple,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Pangarkhede, Tal. & District Buldhana.
54] Renuka d/o Sanjay Jadhav,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Soygaon, Tal. & District Buldhana.
55] Sagar S/o Ratnakar Sontakke,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. N-11, T. V. Centre, HUDCO, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
7 RA6.2018&Ors
56] Rahul S/o Gangadhar Kasbe,
Age : 31 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Manishnagar, Waluj, Tal. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad.
57] Vinod S/o Rupchand Nimrat,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Surewadi, Harsul, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad. ... Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
..........
Mr R. R. Shetty, Advocate for petitioners No. 1 to 3
Dr S. D. Tawshikar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 57
.............
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12117 OF 2016
1] Yogesh S/o. Rajaram Rasal
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Bhanupwadi, Post-Raymoha,
Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed.
2] Savita D/o. Bhusaheb Kadam,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Arvi, Tal & Dist. Parbhani.
3] Sagar S/o. Ratnakar Sontakke,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. N-11, T. V. Centre,
HUDCO, Aurangabad.
4] Kalyani D/o. Chandrakant Jadhav,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Rangar Galli, Gulmandi, Aurangabad,
Tq. & District Aurangabad. ...Petitioners..
VERSUS
1] Ananta Narayan Nanda,
Secretary, Department of Posts, Sanchar Bhavan,
New Delhi.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
8 RA6.2018&Ors
2] Shri Harish C. Agrawal,
The Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle,
2nd Floor, Mumbai GPO Old Building, Mumbai.
3] Shri. D. G. Chaskar,
The Assistant Director Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, 2nd Floor, Mumbai GPO,
Old Building, Mumbai. Respondents...
.......
Dr. Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr B. B. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents
............
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2017
1] Union of India,
through the Secretary to
Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information
Technology, Delhi.
2] The Chief Post Master General,
Maharashtra Circle,
Mumbai 400 001.
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. Petitioners..
VERSUS
1] Bhagwan s/o Dhondiba Ghuge,
age: 30 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Asola, Post_Kawada,
Tq. Jintur, District Parbhani.
2] Vishwanath s/o Wamanrao Ghogare,
age: 30 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Karanji, Post Bamani Bk.,
Tq. & District Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
9 RA6.2018&Ors
3] Chetan s/o Ashok Sonawane,
age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Bhakshi Nagar, Shanti Nagar,
Satana Rural, Tq. Satana,
District Nashik.
4] Ganesh s/o Laxman Gend,
age: 31 years, Occ:
R/o At Post Jalgaon Galhe,
Tq. Malegaon 423 202, District Nashik.
5] Dinesh s/o Keda Shinde,
age: 27 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Plot No.103/1, Near
Grampanchayat Office,
Ajmir Saudanane, Dist.Nashik.
6] Sanket s/o Ashok Sonawane,
age: 22 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Bakshi Road,
Suyog Colony, Shanti nagar, Satana,
Baglan, Tal.Satana, Dist. Nashik.
7] Pandarinath s/o Ratan Mandawade,
age: 26 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Chaugaon
Road, Mo.Po. Chaugaon, Chaugaon,
Tal. and District Nashik.
8] Dhananjay s/o Keshav Gosavi,
age: 28 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o H.No.2116, Bhakshi Rd,
Sharad Nagar, Near Water Tank,
Satana, Tal. Baglan, Dist.Nashik.
9] Manoj s/o Raghunath Hivale,
age: 25, Occ: Nil, R/o At Veluk,
Post Washala, Tal.Shahapur,
District Thane, Shahapur.
10] Sachin s/o Keval Patil,
age: 27, Occ: Nil, R/o Room No.202,
Ganesh Krupa Building No.1,
Davale Nagar Pada No.3, Lokmanya
Nagar, Thane West, District Thane.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
10 RA6.2018&Ors
11] Dipak s/o Bharat Sonawane,
age: 28 years, Occ: Nill, R/o At Post
Chinchwar, Tal. Dhule, District Dhule.
12] Visal s/o Ashok Dungahu,
age: 23 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At
Pimipalkhanta, Tal. Jafrabad,
District Jalna.
13] Vishal s/o Sanjay Wakchaure,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At Post
Zarekathi, Tal. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
14] Prasad s/o Dilip Gosavi,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o 3, Samrudha Residency,
Ramnagar, Indiranagar,
Nashik, District Nashik.
15] Vilas s/o Sakharam Nirgude,
age: 28 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Chehedi Pumpting Station
Road, Near Hanuman Mandir
Nashik Road, District Nashik.
16] Ankush s/o Dnyaneshwar Kapadi,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil, R/o
At Post Pimpalgaon Nipani,
Tq. Niphad, District Nashik.
17] Nilesh s/o Prakash Patil,
age: 27 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At Post
Vidyasagar Colony, Sindhkheda,
District Dhule.
18] Manisha w/o Balu Sonawane,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o 20, Madhuban Housing
Society, Kathe Lane, Near Datta
Mandir, Dwarka, District Nashik.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
11 RA6.2018&Ors
19] Virad s/o Sanjay Salvi,
age: 24 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Suman Coop. Housing Society,
Kopar Cross Road, Near Jain
Mandir, Dombivli West, Dombivli,
District Thane.
20] Ashwin s/o Bhaskar Sonone,
age: 31 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Vadaji, District Buldhana.
21] Yeshwant s/o Karbhari Sonawane,
age: 28 years, Occ: Nil, R/o
Pimpleshwar Road, Krushna Colony,
Baglan, Satana, District Nashik.
22] Pritul s/o Ramdas Patil,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil, R/o 55/3,
Desaipura, near Shreeji Hospital,
Nandurbar, District Nandurbar.
23] Samadhan s/o Nimba Pawar,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At
Devlane, Po: Ajmir Saudhana,
Tal. Baglan, District Nashik.
24] Sandeep s/o Bhau Aher,
age: 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o NA Sawant Marg, Colaba
Fire Brigade, Room No.20,
near Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai.
25] Ajitkumar s/o Dhondiram Lokhande,
age: 31 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Ramchandra Patil Chawl,
Gandhi Nagar No.2, Mulund
Goregaon, Link Road, Mulund West, Mumbai.
26] Nilesh s/o Subhash Wagh,
age: 24 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Mali Wada, Maharashtra Bank,
Javad, Bhadne, District Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
12 RA6.2018&Ors
27] Rushikesh s/o Daulat Pagar,
age: 27 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Pdp nagar, Thengoda, Thengode,
District Nashik.
28] Sandip s/o Tukaram Madhe,
age: 28 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Post Chindchodi, Tal. Akole,
near Vithal Mandi, Kothrud,
Bhandardhara, Rajur, District, Ahmednagar.
29] Gorakh s/o Suryabhan Sanap,
age: 27 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Pachore Bk, Pachore Bk,
Niphad, District Nashik.
30] Vilas s/o Bhaskar Hirale,
age: 27 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Somthan Desh, Somthandesh,
District Nashik.
31] Uday s/o Krushna Yesare,
age: 26 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o B/8, Shree Apartment,
Pokharan Road, Behind Shivsena
Shakha, Khopat, Thane, District Thane.
32] Pranaykumar s/o Sitaram Sudrpam,
age: 28 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Near Shitla Mata Mandir,
B/304, Dhanlaxmi, Co. Hou. Soc.
Mohilli Village, Sakinaka, S.O., Mumbai.
33] Vishnu s/o Manchakrao Bachate,
age: 22 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Kapsi Post, Kerwadi,
Tq. Palam, District Parbhani.
34] Gulab s/o Gangadhar Pandhare,
age: 26 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Kothale Posegaon,
Tq.Naigaon Kh. District Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
13 RA6.2018&Ors
35] Ankosh s/o Nyinbakarao Shinde,
age: 20 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Po. Babhal, Tal.Kalamnuri
Babhali, District Hingoli.
36] Pramod s/o Madhukar Kale,
age: 27 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Sai nagar, Ram Nagar, Jalna,
Near Nilesh Kirana, District Jalna.
37] Amol s/o Vishnu Bargaje,
age: 25 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Post Piimpalner, Tal.Shirur (Ka),
District Beed.
38] Ramkisan s/o Banshi Chavan,
age: 24 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Golegaon, Post Jategaon,
Tal. Georai, District Beed.
39] Rophan s/o Ashwaling Salappa,
age: 26 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Shiv Prasad Sadan,
Adarsh Nagar, DP Road, Dist.Beed.
40] Akshay s/o Sanjay Sonawne,
age: 20 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Jawahar Colony Road,
Vishnu Nagar, V/A5, Aurangabad.
41] Yogesh s/o Ramkrushna Ghuge,
age: 28 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Mehagaon, Post Wasadi,
Tal. Kannad, District Aurangabad.
42] Sachin s/o Dattatraya Sonawane,
age: major, R/o Shriram Colony,
Hiwarkheda Road, Tal. Kannad,
District Aurangabad.
43] Kailash s/o Sheshrao Bhise,
age: major, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Sabalkheda, Post Palsi,
Tal. Sengaon, District Hingoli.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
14 RA6.2018&Ors
44] Gaurav s/o Vilas Khoje,
age: 30 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Virbhadra Nagar,
Mu.Po. Sakur, Sakur,
District Ahmednagar.
45] Pravin s/o Sheshrdao Kadam,
age: major, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Po. Chitali, Tal. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar.
46] Atul s/o Prakash Pardeshi,
age: 26 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Near Bhajani Math, Igatpuri,
District Nashik.
47] Ganesh s/o Shivaji Jadhav,
age: 31 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o N.S.P. College, Pimpalner,
Pimpalner, District Dhule.
48] Shankar s/o Bhaurav Dhumase,
age: 28 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Vitewadi, Post Pale, Tq.Kalwan,
Pale, District Nashik.
49] Shivshankar s/o Namdeo Giri,
age: 23 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o At Post Siddheshwar, Tq.Aundha
Nagnath, District Hingoli.
50] Pramod s/o Dilip Wanare,
age: 29 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Tayade Coloony, Khamgaon,
Tq.Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.
51] Nitesh s/o Shivnath Jadhav,
age: major, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Yashwant Colony Chowk No.4,
Room No.1, Ganesh Marg, Vikroli,
(East) 400 083.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
15 RA6.2018&Ors
52] Gajanan s/o Tukaram More,
age: 27 years, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Panshevadi, Tal. Kandhar, District Nanded.
53] Govardhan s/o Ramrao Tungar,
age: 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Chanyakyapuri, B.C. Wing,
Flat No.6, Peth Road, Makhamalabad
Naka, Nashik, District Nashik.
54] Avinash s/o Bhagwan Kapse,
age: major, Occ: unemployed,
R/o Jawalgaon, Tal. Barshi, District Solapur.
55] Imran Khan Gafar Khan,
age: major, Occ: Nil, R/o Masoom
Colony, Darga Road, Parbhani,
District Parbhani.
56] Hanmant s/o Nagnath Linganwad,
age; 26 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Gaglegaon,
Tal. Biloli, District Hingoli. Respondents..
............
Mr S. B. Deshpande, ASG for petitioners
Dr Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 56
.....................
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9447 OF 2017
1] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology,
Delhi.
2] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. ... Review Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
16 RA6.2018&Ors
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
01] Bharat s/o Baliram Chavan,
age: 30 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Pimpalgaon Kajale Tanda,
Tq. Jintur, District Parbhani.
02] Amruta s/o Vasantrao Rathod,
age: 28 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Shrihari Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani.
03] Nilesh s/o Rambhau Badhe,
age: 27 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At Post
Nandura, Malkapur Road,
Near Civil Court, Nandura,
Tal.Nandura, District Buldhana.
04] Shabbir s/o Nuruddin Mulla,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Banajgai, Tal. Akkalkot, District Solapur.
05] Nikhil s/o Bhimrao Shendre,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil, R/o
At Post Shiroli, Tal. Ghanji, District Yavatmal.
06] Dipak s/o Dnyandeo Mahakal,
age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Durga Nagar, Tal. Nandura, District Buldhana.
07] Sachin s/o Madhukar Satao,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Durga
Nagar, Malkapur Road, Nandura,
Tal. Nandura, Dist. Buldhana.
08] Rajesh s/o Shravan Ghode,
age: 25 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o C.G.S. Colony, Sector C,
Bhandup East, Mumbai, Mumbai 400 042.
09] Santosh s/o Raosaheb Sirsat,
age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Walewadi, Tal. Ambejogai, District Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
17 RA6.2018&Ors
10] Dnyaneshwar s/o Shivajirao Sirsat,
age: 24 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Walewadi, Tal. Ambejogai, District Beed.
11] Vyankat s/o Vaijanath Lahane,
age: 26 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Walewadi, Tq.Ambejogai, District Beed.
12] Jayesh s/o Ashok Waghmare,
age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Shivlani Kothal, Tq.Nilanga, District Latur.
13] Santosh s/o Ambadas Shinde,
age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed,
R/o Wanjarwadi, Tal.Nandgaon, District Nashik.
14] Umesh s/o Eknath Kakad,
age: 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Chikhla, Post Pimpri
Khandare, Tal. Lonar, District Buldhana. ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
............
Mr S. B. Deshpande, ASG for petitioners
Dr Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 14
.....................
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9910 OF 2017
01] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology,
Delhi.
02] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
03] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
18 RA6.2018&Ors
04] Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Solapur Division, Solapur,
District Solapur. ... Review Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1] Amit S/o Rajendra Dongre,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Ausa, Tq. Ausa, District Latur.
2] Annasaheb S/o Shivaji Mali,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Dhanuri, Tq. Lohara,
District Osmanabad. ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
...................
Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Assistant Solicitor General for Union
of India with Mrs. Deepali Ansingkar (Jape), advocate for
applicants
Mr.V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar,
advocate for the respondents.
...................
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9910 OF 2017
01. Amit S/o. Rajendra Dongre,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Ausa, Tal. Ausa, Dist. Latur.
02. Annasaheb @ Annarao S/o. Shivaji Mali,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Dhanuri,
Tal. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. ...Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1] Ananta Narayan Nanda,
Secretary, Department of Posts, Sanchar Bhavan,
New Delhi.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
19 RA6.2018&Ors
2] Shri Harish C. Agrawal,
The Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle,
2nd Floor, Mumbai GPO Old Building, Mumbai.
3] Shri. D. G. Chaskar,
The Assistant Director Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, 2nd Floor, Mumbai GPO,
Old Building, Mumbai. Respondents...
.......
Dr. Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for the applicants
Mr B. B. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents
............
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9837 OF 2017
1] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology,
Delhi.
2] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. ... Review Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
01] Rahul s/o Anantrao Kale,
age: 24 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o 5/3/260, Sunjay Nagar,
Smashan Maroti Road, Line No. C10,
Aurangabad.
02] Sandeep s/o Dnyandeo Bansode,
age: 23 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Durga
Mandir, At Post Doiphode Wadi,
Singav (Jahagirdar), Taluka
Deaulgaonraja, Dist.Buldhana.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
20 RA6.2018&Ors
03] Bhushan s/o Gopichand Baviskar,
age: 21 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Post Mukti, Galli No.02,
Ram Mandir Chowk, Dhule.
04] Varsha s/o Uttam Jadhav,
age: 27 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o BDD Chawl, No.60, Room
No.25, Dr.G.M.Bhosale Marg,
Worli, Maharashtra
05] Vithal s/o Govind Panchal,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o National Association for the Blinds, 1112,
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Road,
Worli Seaface, Mumbai400 030.
06] Sandeep s/o Bhausaheb Tile,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At Post
Dhamori, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar.
07] Vasanta s/o Dayaram Dahake,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Opposite Electric Pol,
Shivani, Titur Kuhi, Nagpur.
08] Jypal s/o Dinkar Shrirame,
age: 24 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At Post
Khutala, Tq. Chimur,
District Chandrapur 442 904.
09] Devanand s/o Bhiva Raserao,
age: 30 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Shingoli, Post Tirhe,
Tq. Mohol, District Solapur 413 002.
10] Amol s/o Pandurang Kathar,
age: 24 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Line No.07,
Plot No.15/16, Jadhavwadi (Sarvewedi),
Harsool, Aurangabad 431 005.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
21 RA6.2018&Ors
11] Shrikant s/o Ganesh Gangamwar,
age: 26 years, Occ: Nil, R/o
At Post Bhokar, District Nanded- 431 801.
12] Vinod s/o Kartik Shende,
age: 24 years, Occ: Nil, R/o
at Manjara (Begde), Post Khadasangi,
Tq.Majara Begde, District Chandrapur 442 906.
13] Anita d/o Arun Patil,
age: 28 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Post Patil Vada, Shirpur,
Tq. & District Dhule.
14] Changdev s/o Pandurang Choure,
age: 32 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Sarukwadi, Post : Chincholimali,
Tq. Kaij, District Beed 431 123.
15] Varsha s/o Sanjay Patil,
age: 24 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Post Ravanje, Tq.Yarandol,
District Jalgaon 425 103.
16] Rajendra s/o Ramdas Shinde,
age: 29 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o At Alme, Post: Ballalwadi,
Near Muktadevi Temple, Pune 410 502. ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
........
Mr S. B. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for applicants
Dr. Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for respondents
........
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4094 OF 2018
IN
REVIEW APPLICATION ST NO. 35318 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10373 OF 2017
1] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology, Delhi.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
22 RA6.2018&Ors
2] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. ... Review Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1] Shivpratap S/o Ganpat Jadhwar,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. SRTR Medical College Campus,
In front of Sinhgad Colony, Ambajogai,
Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.
2] Nitin S/o Laxman Sangekar,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Pachalegaon, Tq. Jintur,
District Parbhani.
3] Ramdas S/o Hulppa Papaji,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Alandi, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded.
4] Raju S/o Raghunath Bhurkade,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Mungala, Tq. Malegaon,
District Washim.
5] Ganesh S/o Motiram Waghmare,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. House No. 1-21/6, Shriramnagar, CIDCO,
N-2, Post Mukundwadi, Aurangabad.
6] Dipak S/o Dadasaheb Pandit,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Tupewadi, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad.
7] Raju S/o Ratan Mhaske,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Dongaon, Tq. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
23 RA6.2018&Ors
8] Sandeep S/o Dnyaneshwar Khute,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Bhingare, Post Nimgaon (Madh),
Tq. Yeola, District Nashik.
9] Dilkhush S/o Chhaburao Kokate,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. C/o. C. D. Kokate,
At Satali, Post Chichondi, Tq. Yeola,
District Nashik.
10] Nandkishor S/o Shravan Wankhade,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Bhogalsingnagar No. 2,
Behind Buddha Mandir Wankhede Galli,
Janeko Society, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai.
11] Nagnath S/o Hanumantrao Bhujbal,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Porjawala, Post Majlapur, Tq. Parbhani,
District Parbhani.
12] Yogiraj S/o Rakhama Benke,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o.
13] Mahendra S/o Maruti Musale,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Padoli, Tq. Kalamb,
District Osmanabad.
14] Shrikant S/o Panditrao Borgaonkar,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Ambika Colony, Somnathpur Road,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, District Latur.
15] Mangesh S/o Prabhakar Kedare,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Police Head Quarter,
Line No. 1, Room No. 16, Near Old CBS,
Nashik, District Nashik.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
24 RA6.2018&Ors
16] Yash S/o Suryakant Magar,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Mahadev Row House No. 4,
Behind Old Baba Sai Hotel,
More Hospital, Ambad Link Road,
Nashik.
17] Santosh S/o. Tanaji Shinde,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. B, 204, Krishna CH5, Sector 11,
Plot No. 35, Kamothe, Tq. Panvel, District Raigad.
18] Sugatnand S/o Panjabrao Poharkar,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. 115, Babasaheb Sangludkar Nagar,
Banosa Daryapur, District Amravati,
Daryapur.
19] Sambhaji S/o Devidas Sangle,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Gutti, Tq. Jalkot,
District Latur.
20] Sharad S/o. Dhondiram Waghmare,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Bheta, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur. ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
........
Mr S. B. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for applicants
Dr. Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for respondents
........
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION ST NO. 35318 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10373 OF 2017
1] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology,
Delhi.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
25 RA6.2018&Ors
2] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. ... Review Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1] Shivpratap S/o Ganpat Jadhwar,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. SRTR Medical College Campus,
In front of Sinhgad Colony, Ambajogai,
Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.
2] Nitin S/o Laxman Sangekar,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Pachalegaon, Tq. Jintur,
District Parbhani.
3] Ramdas S/o Hulppa Papaji,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Alandi, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded.
4] Raju S/o Raghunath Bhurkade,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Mungala, Tq. Malegaon,
District Washim.
5] Ganesh S/o Motiram Waghmare,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. House No. 1-21/6, Shriramnagar, CIDCO,
N-2, Post Mukundwadi, Aurangabad.
6] Dipak S/o Dadasaheb Pandit,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Unemployed,
R/o. Tupewadi, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad.
7] Raju S/o Ratan Mhaske,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Dongaon, Tq. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
26 RA6.2018&Ors
8] Sandeep S/o Dnyaneshwar Khute,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Bhingare, Post Nimgaon (Madh),
Tq. Yeola, District Nashik.
9] Dilkhush S/o Chhaburao Kokate,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. C/o. C. D. Kokate,
At Satali, Post Chichondi, Tq. Yeola,
District Nashik.
10] Nandkishor S/o Shravan Wankhade,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Bhogalsingnagar No. 2,
Behind Buddha Mandir Wankhede Galli,
Janeko Society, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai.
11] Nagnath S/o Hanumantrao Bhujbal,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Porjawala, Post Majlapur, Tq. Parbhani,
District Parbhani.
12] Yogiraj S/o Rakhama Benke,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o.
13] Mahendra S/o Maruti Musale,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Padoli, Tq. Kalamb,
District Osmanabad.
14] Shrikant S/o Panditrao Borgaonkar,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Ambika Colony, Somnathpur Road,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, District Latur.
15] Mangesh S/o Prabhakar Kedare,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Police Head Quarter,
Line No. 1, Room No. 16, Near Old CBS,
Nashik, District Nashik.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
27 RA6.2018&Ors
16] Yash S/o Suryakant Magar,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Mahadev Row House No. 4,
Behind Old Baba Sai Hotel,
More Hospital, Ambad Link Road,
Nashik.
17] Santosh S/o. Tanaji Shinde,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. B, 204, Krishna CH5, Sector 11,
Plot No. 35, Kamothe, Tq. Panvel, District Raigad.
18] Sugatnand S/o Panjabrao Poharkar,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. 115, Babasaheb Sangludkar Nagar,
Banosa Daryapur, District Amravati,
Daryapur.
19] Sambhaji S/o Devidas Sangle,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Gutti, Tq. Jalkot,
District Latur.
20] Sharad S/o. Dhondiram Waghmare,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Bheta, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur. ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11801 OF 2017
1] Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Ministry of Posts,
Communications & Information Technology,
Delhi.
2] The Chief Post-Master General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 400 001.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
28 RA6.2018&Ors
3] The Assistant Director,
Postal Services (Recruitment),
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. ... Review Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1] Maroti S/o Devidas Kalyankar,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. C. S. Kalyankar, Khadakpura, Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
2] Nitin S/o Nivratyhi Salve,
Age : 32 years, Occu. Unemployed,
Sujata Colony, Old Pedgaon Road, Parbhani,
District Parbhani.
3] Someshwar S/o Ganeshrao Sawale,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Shingnapur, Tq. Daryapur,
District Amravati.
4] Sachin S/o. Madhav Gosavi,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Kalparaj Housing Society,
Gulmohar Nagar, Mhasrul, Nashik, District Nashik.
5] Sachin S/o Kishanrao Bukkawar,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Sadhna Nagar, Deglur,
Tq. Deglur, District Nanded.
6] Shaikh Akhil S/o Shaikh Shadulla,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Line Galli, Degav Road, Deglur,
Tq. Deglur, District Nanded.
7] Ashish S/o Ashok Borhade,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Chicbunder, BIT Chawl No. 5,
3rd Floor, Room No. 57, Dongri,
Mumbai.
8] Ajay S/o. Arunrao Dhamankar
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
29 RA6.2018&Ors
R/o. Vivekanand Ward No. 1,
Borban, Tq. Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
9] Pundalik S/o Banku Gotale,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot,
District Latur.
10] Sudhakar S/o Babu Rathod,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Varwanti Tanda, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur. ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
CORAM : R. M. BORDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 06.04.2018.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 04.05.2018.
ORDER [ PER A. M. DHAVALE, J. ] :
1. These Review Petitions involve common questions of law and facts. These are commonly heard and we dispose of by this common judgment. The Union of India and Chief Post-Master General seek review of common orders passed in various Writ Petitions whereby the respondents who were selected for the post of Postman or Multi-tasking Staff and whose selections were cancelled were ordered to be given postings. On 02.08.2017, a common order was passed in Writ Petition No. 9910 of 2010 and four connected writ petitions. In remaining writ petitions, later on, the same order was followed.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
30 RA6.2018&Ors
2. Civil Application No. 4094 of 2018 is for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring the review petition. Since several other petitions involving the same subject are already admitted and common question of law and facts are involved, considering the larger public interest, we condone the delay caused in preferring the review petition on the ground of bureaucratic slow process and take up all review petitions.
3. The following chart shows the names of original petitioners and the writ petition numbers presented by them. Sr. No. Review Petition No. Writ Petition No. Orig. Petitioners Date of Order 1 5 of 2018 11801 of 2017 Maruti Kalyankar & 9 Ors. 26/09/17 2 6 of 2018 12117 of 2016 Prakash Wani & 56 Ors. 02/08/17 3 7 of 2018 9837 of 2017 Rahul Kale & 15 Ors. 02/08/17 4 8 of 018 30 of 2017 Bhagwan Ghuge & 55 Ors. 02/08/17 5 9 of 2018 9447 of 17 Bharat Chavan & 13 Ors. 02/08/17 6 St. 35318 of 2017 10373 of 17 Shivpratap Jadhavar & 19 Ors. 21/08/17 7 10 of 2018 9910 of 2017 Amit Dongare & Anr. 02/08/17
4. As per admitted facts, recruitment process for the posts of Postman and Mail guard and Multi-tasking Staff was initiated in the month of 2015 and Manipal Technology Ltd was selected as Outsourcing Agency by an agreement dt.13.01.2015. Notification inviting on-line applications was published on 24.01.2015. The examination form for the post of Postman-cum-Mail guard for 1701 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 31 RA6.2018&Ors seats was conducted on 29.03.2015 and examination for 733 posts of Multi-task staff was held on 03.05.2015. The figures of candidates applied, held eligible and selected are as follows.
Sr. No. Post Applications received Candidates appeared Candidates
selected
1 Postman/Mail guard 575383 373979 1701
2 Multi-Tasking Staff 213552 119212 733
Total 788935 493191 2434
5. The process of appointment was started and the training course was also started in respect of some of the selected candidates.
6. Thereafter, the Postal Department noticed many irregularities in the examination held and the OMRs filled up and the answer papers of the candidates. There were also very good marks scored in Marathi subject by non-Marathi candidates. On 10.01.2016, internal investigation was commenced on the complaints received. After preliminary findings, on 10.06.2016, further appointments were immediately stopped. The inquiry revealed following irregularities, discrepancies and doubtful conditions.
(i) The signatures and the photographs of the candidates affixed on their applications did not tally with the signatures or photographs shown on the admission card or application form.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
32 RA6.2018&Ors
(ii) Non - Maharashtrian candidates surprisingly scored higher marks in Marathi subject.
(iii) The investigation disclosed that, the conduct of the examination was compromised which resulted in large number of below average candidates entering into the merit list.
(iv) The outsourcing agency who conducted the examination committed several mistakes. The entire evaluation process was vitiated by such mistakes.
(v) It was difficult to separate tainted and non-tainted candidates.
It was suspected that the outsourcing agency was involved in the malpractices. The Department took a decision to cancel the entire examination. Investigation by External Agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was found necessary. Hence, on 25.11.2016, the entire examination was cancelled. Meanwhile, out of 2434 selected candidates, appointment was given to 356 candidates and the appointment of 2078 candidates was stopped.
7. The cancellation of the examination was challenged by large number of candidates before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai by filing Original Applications bearing No. 805, 806, 808, 809, 810 of 2016 & 817 of 2017. The above referred writ petitions came to be filed by total 176 candidates in this court. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
33 RA6.2018&Ors
8. In Manu Tomar's case arising out of postal recruitment in Gujarat State, it was observed by the Apex Court that the suspected malpractices were found in five states. The Postal Department and the Union were permitted to proceed against them in accordance with law. It was ordered that those persons who are not suspected of having committed any malpractices and who have undergone the prescribed courses may be reinstated with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages, with liberty to the respondents to take action against them in case subsequently it was found in the investigation that they had indulged in some malpractices. It was observed that, the respondents were at liberty to take action against those students who violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared at more than two centres. It was also made clear that, the said order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters. The candidates who had partially completed the course were permitted to complete the course/training if they were not suspected of malpractice.
9. In five Writ Petitions bearing No. 9910/2017, 30/2017, 12117/2016, 9447/2017 and 9837/2017, on 02.08.2017, it was admitted before us that the facts in these writ petitions were identical ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 34 RA6.2018&Ors to the matter of Monu Tomar vs Union of India & Ors. (supra) before the Apex Court. All the petitioners therein were declared successful and had undergone medical examination and were issued selection letters. Some of the petitioners had completed their training and also reported to the duties. Their appointments were cancelled by order dt. 25.11.2016. It was admitted before this Court that, so far as Maharashtra circle was concerned, no malpractices were reported except at Amravati and Nagpur centres. Keeping in view these facts, relying on the order dt. 13.07.2017 in Monu Tomar's case, we passed the following order.
7 . Since it is noticed that candidates appearing from Maharashtra Circle, except Amravati and Nagpur centres, are not reported to have been involved in the malpractices, such of those candidates, who do not alleged to have been involved in the malpractices, can be extended benefit of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to above. 8 . It has not been contended by the respondents that any of the petitioners before us is suspected of having involved in the malpractices at the examination. In this view of the matter, such of those petitioners, who have undergone the prescribed training and reported on duty, shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages. So far as petitioners, who have not completed the training, but who are in the process of completing the training or did not join the training until impugned action was taken, are permitted to complete the course/training. As has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
35 RA6.2018&Ors
9. In view of above, writ petitions are allowed to the extent specified above. Respondents shall take consequential steps pursuant to this order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. 10 . Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above. No order as to costs. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
10. Relying on this order, similar orders were passed in Writ Petition No. 10373 of 2017 on 21.08.2017 and Writ Petition No. 11801 of 2017 dt. 26.09.2017.
11. Shri. Anil Singh, learned Addl. Solicitor General has made following submissions :
(i) Since these orders were passed on the basis of mistaken facts and since larger public interest is involved, the review lies against such orders.
(ii) The statement that in Maharashtra there were no discrepancies except in Amravati and Nagpur, was factually not correct. Initially large scale discrepancies were found in Amravati and Mumbai but, later on, after investigation, large scale discrepancies indicating malpractices and possibility of leakage of paper were found all over the State. The percentage of such discrepancies in the papers of selected candidates was above 40% in both the examination and it was not possible to differentiate between candidates not involved in any malpractices and ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 36 RA6.2018&Ors candidates involved in malpractices. It is true that, many candidates were appointed and had reported to the duties.
Some of them have completed training. The larger public interest required that only meritorious candidates should get appointments and in view of the discrepancies in the conduct of examinations and malpractices noticed, there was no option for the petitioners but to cancel the entire examination.
12. In order to support his submissions that the entire conduct of examination was tainted and there was possibility of leakage of papers and copying, Mr Anil Singh pointed out the discrepancies noted in the vigilance report as follows :
(i) The signatures and/or photographs of the candidates appearing for the examination did not match with the signatures or photographs shown on the admission card or application form.
(ii) Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) form was provided for the examination but the Outsourcing Agency prepared forms containing only 8 digits, whereas, many students were given numbers of 9 digits. The numbers were to be written both in figures as well as by filling bubbles in the row of 1 to 0 against each digit. Since this was not done, there was insertion of additional digit and row in the OMR form which could not be accepted by the computer which resulted into manual intervention. Such manual intervention created possibilities of tampering the paper.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
37 RA6.2018&Ors
(iii) In many cases, attendance sheets were not found.
(iv) The selected candidates were found absent on the attendance sheet. The attendance sheets were found without signatures of the candidates and Exam Invigilator.
(v) The candidates from other states, who had not learnt Marathi, scored more than 60% in Marathi.
(vi) Common mobile numbers and/or email addresses were given at the time of registration.
(vii) The common communication addresses were given by candidates not related to each other.
(viii) Some candidates with poor academic background scored well in the examination of Maths & English.
(ix) Some candidates have passed both the examinations.
13. Mr Singh provided a chart indicating the discrepancies found in respect of 176 candidates selected, who had filed the petitions before us. The chart shows that, in 87 cases, one or more such discrepancies were noticed. He submitted that, the outsourcing agency overlooked these malpractices and discrepancies indicating that the agency itself might be involved in the large scale compromise ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 38 RA6.2018&Ors with the process of recruitment. He relied on number of Supreme Court rulings to submit that, in such cases it is not possible to select the candidates against whom there is no suspicion and segregate the candidates against whom there are suspicious circumstances.
14. Mr Singh also argued that, the writ petitions were not maintainable as the original petitioners had alternate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
15. Per Contra, Shri. P. M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the review petitions are not maintainable. There is no error apparent on the face of record. This Court has passed the impugned orders after hearing the parties and on the basis of statements made by the learned counsels for the parties. No factual or legal mistake is pointed out in passing of such orders. He submitted that, many students have completed their training and have joined the duties. He also referred to one case wherein the candidate after his selection in this examination resigned from his earlier post of Talathi. He also pointed out that, the said candidate on the basis of his selection had incurred loan to meet marriage expenses of his sister and as the examination was cancelled, he is facing acute financial problems. Mr. Shah submitted that, in ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 39 RA6.2018&Ors case of malpractices, the candidates are ready to face the enquiry. But, when the candidates selected and appointed and are not involved in malpractices and when no suspicion is found in their cases, it is not proper to cancel the entire examination. He submitted that, the ratio in Monu Tomar's case (supra) was on identical facts and squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. He argued that, the petitioners herein had relied on the finding of the Gujarat High Court with which the Apex Court had not agreed. According to the petitioners herein, there was no case of mass copying. There is no evidence of leakage of papers. The administrative irregularities noticed cannot be equated with the malpractices. Then, Mr Shah, the learned Counsel referred to the discrepancies pointed out in the vigilance report and submitted that, these are not the discrepancies worth consideration. He submitted that, the space provided for signature was small and, therefore, some signatures were in compressed form. The variation in the signatures is on account of such compression. He argued that, the photographs on Aadhar Card or PAN Card are so bad that they hardly match with the actual photographs of the candidates. Merely because the photographs on Aadhaar Card or on PAN card do not match with the admission card or application form it will not indicate that there was impersonation on their part. With respect to OMR, he submitted that it was fault on ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 40 RA6.2018&Ors the part of agency involved in the recruitment process. The forms were provided of eight digits whereas many candidates were provided numbers of nine digits. The candidates were bound to record their nine digit numbers in the OMR column which was made only for eight digits. The candidates were constrained to make necessary adjustments by addition of a line for accommodating first or last digit. It is not a case of malpractice. He argued that, OMR number was not only the source to identify the candidate's form. The form provided BAR Code, photograph and signature to match the identity of person appearing for the examination. He submitted that, many candidates were having no email address, communication address or mobile numbers and if they have given email address, mobile number or communication address of their friends, it cannot be called as serious discrepancy raising doubt about malpractice and paper leakage. He criticized that, the academic score cannot be compared with the score in the examination. In the present case, the marks were given on objective basis when the candidates were supposed to select one out of multiple choices. Therefore, mere poor academic record cannot be a ground to suspect about the good scores in the examination. Similarly, he argued that, the students of other states might have prepared well for exam and therefore they might have scored well in Marathi language. Alternatively, he argued that ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 41 RA6.2018&Ors if there are any serious circumstances in respect of some candidates, their appointments can be withheld.
16. Learned advocates for other respondents Mr. V. J. Dixit, Dr. Tawshikar supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. P. M. Shah.
17. With respect to the scope of review, following rulings are cited.
(i) Kamlesh Verma v Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320.
"20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-
Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
42 RA6.2018&Ors
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi)The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
(ii) Chandrakant Vishram Chavan v. Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Application (Review) No. 19 of 2014), dt. 11.02.2016 (Goa Bench).
(iii) Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., 2013(8) SCC 337.
Error apparent on the face of record should be germane/ relevant to the dispute.
(iv) Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors.
AIR 2006 SCC 1634.
An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
43 RA6.2018&Ors
(v) Suman Dattatraya Kadam v Shobha Kailas Bonekar (Civil Application No. 26 of 2007) decided by Full Bench of this Court at Aurangabad dt. 17.04.2007.
(vi) Batuk K. Vyas vs Surat Borough Municipality AIR 1953 Bom 133
18. Though large number of rulings are cited and lot of arguments are advanced on the maintainability of review, there is no dispute that review jurisdiction can be exercised when there is an error apparent on the face of record. In the present case, we find such error apparent on the face of record.
19. All the orders are based on our order dt. 02.08.2017 in Writ Petition No. 9910 of 2017. The order is passed on following assumptions:
(i) The facts giving rise to these petitions are admittedly identical to the facts in Monu Tomar v Union of India & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 13.07.2017.
(ii) It was reported that, malpractices have taken place in five circles Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana & Gujarat. So far as Maharashtra circle is concerned, admittedly, no malpractices have been reported except in Amravati & Nagpur centres.
(iii) Since it is noticed that, candidates appearing from Maharashtra circle except Amravati & Nagpur centres are ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 44 RA6.2018&Ors not reported to have been involved in malpractices, such of those candidates who do not alleged to have been in malpractices can be extended the benefits of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above.
20. It is crystal clear that, due to misconception of facts referred to herein above on account of wrong submissions made on behalf of the Union, we have passed the impugned orders by placing reliance on the order of the Apex Court in Manu Tomar's case. If we would have been properly assisted at the time of passing this order and we would have been informed that these facts are not factually true or were at least not admitted, we would not have passed such order.
21. After carefully considering the arguments advanced and going through the papers on record, we notice that the above observations are factually not correct.
22. In the Central Council For Research in Ayurveda vs Dr. K. Santhakumari (Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2001), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Judgment dt. 04.05.2001, it is observed:
Had the appellants pointed out the true position, the learned Single Judge would not have granted relief in favour of the respondent. If the learned Counsel had made an admission or concession inadvertently or under a mistaken impression of ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 45 RA6.2018&Ors law, it is not binding on his client and the same cannot enure to the benefit of any party.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan reported in AIR 1998 SC 1681 pointed out that, a wrong concession on a question of law, made by a counsel is not binding on his client and such concession cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent.
24. In Board Of Control For Cricket vs Netaji Cricket Club & Ors reported in 2005(4) SCC 741, it is observed:
90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit".
25. In the present case, the learned counsel representing the Union made submissions or concession which were not borne out from the facts. In the writ petition, copy of vigilance report was filed showing several discrepancies and suggesting malpractices or paper leakage or impersonation. The same was not restricted to Amravati and Nagpur centres as represented before us. The vigilance report ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 46 RA6.2018&Ors discloses large scale malpractices compelling the department to cancel the entire recruitment process. One of the main reasons for the same was loss of credibility or integrity of the outsourcing agent to whom the entire recruitment process was given. There are several examples given. Some of them are as follows:
(i) A person who did not appear for the exam was declared as selected.
(ii) Common email addresses, communication addresses, mobile numbers or permanent addresses were given by several persons when they were not related to each other.
The result shows that, the answers given by them and marks obtained by them were matching each other to the large extent including the wrong answers.
(iii) The precautions were to be taken to avoid impersonation, by issuing admit cards and taking photographs and signatures and obtaining optical mark recognition system to provide for scanning by computer to prevent manual intervention. But, the agency provided answer sheets having OMR numbers of only 8 digits whereas, the candidates were given numbers of 9 digits. It introduced manual intervention. Besides, in many cases, photographs and/or signatures were found different. There were no attendance sheets in some cases. In some cases, the candidate had not signed the answer sheets or the attendance sheets, still many of them have been declared as selected.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
47 RA6.2018&Ors
(iv) The record shows that, there were malpractices and discrepancies in 46 centres all over the State and high level malpractices were found in some centres like Mumbai, Thane, Amravati, Nagpur & Goa.
(v) It is pertinent to note that, four different booklet series having same question in different sequences were provided to the candidates. Booklet series number and booklets number were very much material for evaluation of the answers but in many cases booklet numbers were found different. In many cases, booklet series was not shown. In such cases, evaluation was not possible. Still the papers were evaluated and the candidates were declared selected. The papers disclosed that, though the Outsourcing Agent was not supposed to appoint sub-contractors, it had appointed Chakrava Agency as a sub-contractor. These factual aspects were not placed before us which has resulted into misconception of facts. The least that can be said is that, the assumption that there were no malpractices in Maharashtra circle except at Nagpur and Amravati, was not factually correct. Mr. Anil Singh has argued before us that the FIR has been lodged against the Outsourcing Agent-Manipal Technology and the High Court has refused him bail. There are documents supporting these submissions. Arguments on these points deserved to be heard. These facts were not admitted.
26. It is necessary to point out here that, the recruitment process in Gujarat was quite different from the recruitment process in ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 48 RA6.2018&Ors Maharashtra. The said process was initiated in 2014 and Outsourcing Agent was CMC Ltd. The examinations were held in June-2014 and the results were declared. In the present case, the outsourcing agent is different, the posts were different and the dates of examination were different. The learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court in their judgment in para 3.5 and 3.6 observed that, no vigilance angle was found to have been established in fair conduct of PA SA examination in 11 circles including State of Maharashtra. This observation is factually not correct. The judgment was delivered on 16.08.2016 and even before that in Maharashtra the vigilance enquiry was directed. Complaints were received. The Apex Court has relied upon the above observations of the Gujarat High Court.
27. In these proceedings, we do not want to decide whether there were large scale malpractices or discrepancies requiring the cancellation of entire recruitment process or not. Both the parties have filed several judgments on the point of reasonableness as against proportionality to be observed in such cases. However, the proper course will be to decide only review petitions and if those are allowed the main matters should be fixed for hearing giving full opportunity to both the parties to argue on merits. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
49 RA6.2018&Ors
28. We, however, observe that the orders passed by us were based on misconception of facts. It was on account of no proper legal assistance of the learned counsel for the Union. The statements or concessions given by the advocate were factually wrong and those would not be binding on the litigant. Therefore, in the light of the judgment in BCCI's case, we find that these are fit cases for allowing the review.
29. In view of the above findings, it is not necessary for us to consider the arguments advanced and the judgments cited by both the parties with regard to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain writ petitions in such matters. As earlier stated, we are also not going into the merits.
30. We therefore allow the review petitions and quash and set aside the judgments challenged on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. We restore all the writ petitions to the file and fix them for further consideration. In the light of setting aside the impugned judgment & order, the necessary consequences will follow. We, therefore, hold that the original petitioners will not be entitled for any protection if they are already reinstated as per our orders. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::
50 RA6.2018&Ors
31. Besides, the Contempt Petitions No. 625 of 2017 & 93 of 2018 deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. All the writ petitions are restored keeping all the points open and are fixed for further consideration.
32. Place all the writ petitions for further consideration in second week of June, 2018, before appropriate Bench.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ R. M. BORDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Punde
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 :::