STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. FAKIRA SHIVLAL THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) THE respondent had approached the Maharashtra Administrative tribunal against the order dated 8. 12. 1994, by which his services came to be terminated. The respondent was relieved on 13. 12. 1994. His application before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, was numbered as Original Application No. 605 of 1995. Reliefs prayed for in the application were to set aside the order dated 8. 12. 1994 and for an order or direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in government service and to given a further chance for clearing the departmental examination and in the alternative, to direct the respondents to exempt the applicant from clearing the paper in Precis/essay in English subject, by taking into consideration his academic records. During the pendency of the application, an interim order came to be passed by the Tribunal, on 16. 2. 2001. By the said interim order, the learned Tribunal has observed that the petitioner had made representations to the authorities. The learned Tribunal after noticing the various circulars in force, and the rules observed that it appears that there is discretionary power to grant exemption and it would be appropriate that Government should dispose of the representation one way or other by taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances and pass appropriate orders. From the record, it appears that the representation was considered and rejected. The main application then came up for consideration, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 9. 6. 2003, alongwith another original application of Vinod Narsinhrao Patil, who is the respondent in Writ petition No. 4149 of 2003. Relief was granted to the applicants as set out in the order namely that their case for exemptio should be considered bearing in mind the tests to be applied as set out in the judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the said petition. At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioners, their learned counsel has submitted that :

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, a reply has been filed. It is pleaded that considering the discretion exercised by the tribunal, this Court should not interfere with exercise of discretion, in the exercise of that its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. It is then contended that a perusal of the rules would indicate that there is power in respondent No. 1 to exempt a candidate, appointed by nomination from passing the examination, as required under the rules in force and lastly, it is contended that in so for as the papers on precis/ essay writing is cone srned, perusal of the rule in force will indicate that it has to be conducted in Marathi. In the instant case, it is pointed out that it was required to be answered in English. The respondent has cleared all the papers, except this paper and consequently, the action of the petitioners in declaring the respondent as failed, for failure to pass the paper in precis/essay writing, is without the authority of law and considering that the long period, the respondent is in service , this court should, in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction, direct that the respondent is not required to pass the examination, as it was not conducted according to law and consequently, grant the relief of reinstatement.