HEMANTKUMAR SADASHIVRAO MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Joshi, learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 4. No body has appeared for respondent no. 3 though served.

(2.) Shri Mardikar learned counsel at the out set points out that one of the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondent no. 3 to pay to petitioner his salary from May 1995 till the date of filing of petition and to continue to do so during its pendency. However, he fairly pointed out that respondent no. 3 School is already closed down. It is, therefore, obvious that no such relief can be given in present writ petition against respondent no. 3 atleast at this stage.

(3.) The other contention of Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner is though school is closed down, benefit of provisions of Rule 25(A) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981, is not extended to petitioner on the ground that his petition was pending. Petitioner holds qualification of Diploma in Plant Engineering & on the strength of this qualification, he was given employment in respondent no. 3 college as Instructor in 1992 and after almost three years the respondent no. 2 refused to grant approval on the ground that he does not possess Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He has invited our attention to the fact of filing of Writ Petition No. 2992 of 1995 before this Court and its withdrawal on 02.04.1996 as the State Government was then in process of considering the equivalence of said Diploma with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He has invited attention to impugned order dated 04.12.1996 passed by State Government to urge that instead of considering equivalence between two diplomas, the suitableness of the candidates holding those diplomas for employment has been looked into and thus there is failure to exercise the jurisdiction. Our attention is invited to a Report submitted by three member Committee on 07.12.1993 in this respect, holding that both these Diplomas are equivalent. Learned counsel states that on 25.04.1990, some courses were recognized as equivalent and on 16.11.1993 petitioner was informed that issue of equivalence of his Diploma with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was still under consideration. In this background he contends whether two Diplomas were equivalent or not, needed to be decided on the basis of the Report of the Committee dated 07.12.1993 and in the light of the syllabus or course taught therein. Suitability of the candidates passing out to perform a particular work or type of job could not have been a decisive test for said purpose.