ASHISH SUBHASH BODHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and they arise from a common order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 30/03/2012, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1255 of 2013 has secured a M.D.S. degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1284 of 2013 has secured a M.D.S. degree in the subject of Periodontics. Also, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1311 of 2013 has secured a M.D.S. degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology. It is not in dispute that while securing admission to the post graduate course in dental education, the petitioners were required to sign a bond to serve the Government for a period of two years, failing which they were required to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ to the Government. All the petitioners had signed the bond as aforesaid, while applying for admission to the post graduate course. After the completion of the post graduate course, the petitioners, who had secured M.D.S. Degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology were appointed as Assistant Lecturers for teaching the subjects of Prosthodontics and Orthodontia. So also, the petitioner, who had secured the M.D.S. degree in Periodontics was appointed as a lecturer for teaching the subject of Orthodontia. None of the petitioners were willing to join on the post of Assistant Lecturer in the subjects of Prosthodontics and Orthodontia. According to the petitioners, the State Government ought to have appointed them as lecturers only in the subjects of Oral Pathology and Microbiology and Periodontics as per their specialisation. Since the petitioners declined to serve in the Government Dental Hospital as Assistant Lecturers in the subject of Prosthodontics and Orthodontia, the Government issued a communication asking the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ in accordance with the bond. The said communication was challenged by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in separate original applications. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 30/03/2012, dismissed the original applications filed by the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 30/03/2012 by these petitions.

(3.) Shri Gorle, the learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as also the impugned communication issued by the Government on two grounds. Firstly, according to the learned counsel, it was necessary for the State Government to ask the petitioners to serve as Assistant Lecturers only in the subjects of their specialisation. It is submitted that two petitioners had secured M.D.S. degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology and they could not have been appointed to teach the subjects of Prosthodontics and Orthodontia. It is submitted that the petitioners were ready to serve as Assistant Lecturers in the subjects of Oral Pathology and Microbiology and Periodontics in which they are specialised and they could not have been appointed as Assistant Lecturers to teach a subject, other than the two subjects in which they had secured the masters degree. Secondly, according to the learned counsel, though Dr. Monish Naidu, Dr. Gaurav Kulkarni and Dr. Saoumil Sarin had also refused to join as Assistant Lecturers to teach the subjects other than the subjects in which they had secured the masters degree, the Government relaxed the conditions of the bond by accepting only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ from them. It is submitted that the State cannot be permitted to discriminate in cases of similarly situated graduates. It is submitted that the petitioners should also be permitted to pay only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ as was done in the other three cases. The learned counsel relied on the unreported judgment of the Division Bench at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court, dated 07/11/2012 in Writ Petition No.1862 of 2012 (Dr.Vinod Shankarlal Sharma and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another) to substantiate his submission.