DEEPALI ZILU NAIK Vs. HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith.

(2.) We had informed the learned Counsel appearing in the matter yesterday and today that one of us (U.D. Salvi, J.) was a party to the decision making process impugned in this Writ Petition. The learned Counsel, however, requested us to hear the matter despite the same, invoking the doctrine of necessity, in view of the fact that a Bench of two Judges cannot be constituted in Goa as two Judges, out of the three Judges in Goa, were parties to the decision making process. They further stated that in view of the urgency in the matter, it would not be possible for the petitioners to make an application for constituting another Bench in Mumbai. We, accordingly, with the consent of the parties, proceeded to hear the matter.

(3.) Respondent No.2, the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay at Goa has filed a pursis, on behalf of the High Court, which reads as under: It is respectfully submitted that in case Your Lordships are inclined to allow more candidates to appear for examination and if so ordered by the Hon'ble Court examination be postponed to the next falling Sunday i.e. 2nd May, 2010 and it be subject to production of language certificate by each of the candidates in terms of advertisement before answering the examination. The pursis is taken on record and marked X.