Bombay High Court
Uday Govindraj Dhople And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 December, 2018
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, M. S. Karnik
1/8
pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 175 OF 2018
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra
and ors. .. Respondents
ALONG WITH ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION LODGING NO. 4100 OF 2018
Sanjeet R. Shukla .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
ALONG WITH ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION LODGING NO. 4128 OF 2018
1. Dr. Uday Govindraj Dhople and anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Gunratan Sadavarte for petitioner in PIL No. 175 of 2018.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Sr. Advocate a/w Darshit Jain, Kanchan Dube
and Neha Yadav I/by Mr. Ashish U. Mishra for petitioner in
WPL/4100/18.
Mr. Premal Krishnan a/w Ms. Pooja Patil, Mr. Sankalp Anantwar,
Mr. Anurag Mankar, Risha Alva and Dinesh Bhatia I/by Pan India
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 :::
2/8
pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc
Legal for petitioner in WPL/4128/18.
Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior Counsel, Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate
General, Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel, Mr. A. B. Vagyani, Govt.
Pleader, Smt. P. H. Kantharia, GP, Smt. G. R. Shastri, Addl. G.P, Mr.
P. P. Kakade, AGP, Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Ms.
Prachi Tatake, Mr. Akshay Shinde, B Panel AGP and Joel Carlos,
Shriram Pingle for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil a/w Ankur Pahade, Vivek Joshi, Khushbu
Marwadi and Prasad Dube I/by Jay and Co. for respondent no.3 in
PIL/175/18.
Mr. D. W. Bhosale for respondent no.5 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. R. N. Gite for respondent no.7 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. V. P. Patil I/by Vaibhav Kadam for respondent no.9 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Gajanan Shinde a/w Nikhil Patil for R. No. 10 in PIL/175/18.
Ms. Divya Parab for respondent No.11 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Sandeep Dere a/w Sanjeev Deore for respondent no.12 in
PIL/175/18..
Mr. Rajiv Chavan a/w Priyanka Chavan, Anupama Pawar and Rajesh
Tekale for respondent no.15 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Sandeep Salunke for respondent no.21 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Satish Mane Shinde a/w V. M. Thorat and Abhijit Patil for
respondent no.23 in PIL/175/18.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2018.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the respective parties.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 ::: 3/8
pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that till the issue is settled by this court, no advertisement indicating reservation of 16% quota for Marathas be published. In the alternative, it is submitted that 16% posts reserved for SEBC, Marathas, be filled in from out of the open merit candidates on temporary / ad-hoc and purely contractual basis until further orders passed by this court. It is further submitted that a copy of Commission's report be furnished to the petitioners and the respondents so that they would be better equipped to file appropriate reply/rejoinders.
3. The learned counsel further submitted that the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, through Shri Shivaji Raghunath Daund, Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 deals with the advertisement / recruitment process to be initiated by the State Government and through MPSC, but does not deal with the recruitment process which is likely to be initiated by various other instrumentalities of the State, Local Bodies, Aided and Unaided Institutions, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samities, Cooperative Societies etc. in the State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 ::: 4/8 pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc submitted that irreversible situation may not be created and for that purpose necessary interim directions are required to be issued.
4. We have gone through the reply filed on behalf of the State. Paras 7, 8 and 9 of the said reply read as under :-
7. It is worthwhile to note that the entire procedure, up to the stage of actual final selection, is common for all the candidates, who apply for such posts, irrespective of the category to which they belong. In other words, whatever may be the nature of reservations provided in the advertisement, irrespective of such reservations, the selection process up to the stage of actual allotment is common. I therefore, say that whether or not any reservation is provided, in terms of the impugned Statute, the procedure of selection remains common or unaffected, up to the stage of actual allotment and/or final selection. I say that thus, the stage of actual implementation of the impugned Statute, will arise towards the end of selection process, which is bound to take couple of months.
8. I say that, to start with, there is always a presumption as to the Constitutional validity of every ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 ::: 5/8 pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc Statute. I say that the said presumption is well settled by law and holds good even for the impugned Statute.
Resultantly, when advertisements are issued for taking the aforesaid exercise of recruitment, the recruiting agencies are duty bound to issue the advertisement in compliance with the impugned Statute. Otherwise, such advertisement will be contrary to the law that is holding the field. I, therefore, say that the proposed advertisement will have to reflect the reservation provided by the impugned Statute.
9. I say that considering the overall circumstances set out hereinabove, it is clear that there is no urgency at all, for entertaining prayer mde by the Petitioners, for consideration of even ad-interim relief/order, at this stage of the proceedings. I say that the State Government and its agencies may not be restrained from conducting the recruitment process itself, which is going to take couple of months to reach the stage of actual final selection and/or allotment at which time the issue of providing or not the reservations in terms of the impugned statute will arise. I say that such selection process in any case, will have to be followed in terms of service law, whether or not the impugned Statute continues to operate. ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 ::: 6/8
pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc
5. On instructions, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thorat, submits that,
(a) the Commission's report will be submitted to the Court as and when matter is listed for hearing;
(b) a detailed reply will be filed on behalf of the State on or before 11/01/2019 and a copy thereof will be served on the other sides;
(c) till the next date i.e. 23/01/2019, no appointment orders will be issued to the selected candidates, if any, by the State, instrumentalities of the State, Local Bodies, Aided and Unaided Institutions, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samities, Cooperative Societies etc. in the State of Maharashtra.
6. In view of above, all the Petitions, PILs, Applications, if any, listed today before this court, be accordingly listed on 23/01/2019 for hearing on ad-interim / interim relief. ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 ::: 7/8
pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc
7. The parties agree to follow schedule as under:-
(a) The respondents shall file their reply on or before 11/01/2019 and copy of the reply shall be served on the petitioners.
(b) On receipt of the copy of reply, petitioners are at liberty to file rejoinder, if any. Registry to accept such rejoinders.
(c) In case copies of the petitions are not served on the contesting respondents, the petitioners shall serve such copies on the respondents by 22/12/2018 after carrying out necessary amendments.
(d) All the applicants/interveners, who have not served copies of the intervention applications on the petitioners or their learned counsel, shall serve the copies of such applications on the concerned petitioners by the end of December, 2018.
(e) In case any of the petitioners in Writ Petitions/PILs challenging the old statute, desire to amend the Writ ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 ::: 8/8 pil-175, WPL-4100 & 4128 -18.doc Petitions/PILs for challenging constitutional validity of the new statute i.e. the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, they are at liberty to file fresh Writ Petitions/PILs. In case such petitions are filed, the same be clubbed with the other connected matters.
8. Stand over to 23/01/2019 for further hearing on ad- interim / interim relief.
M. S. KARNIK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:23:06 :::