S.K.AZRA PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reference was made to the Larger Bench for consideration of following issues :

(2.) We have thought it fit to examine whether the Reference was warranted in view of the objection raised by Mr. Talekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Talekar submits that the Reference is made under Rule 7 of Chapter-I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 [for short "the Rules of 1960"] which is not applicable as the said Rule enables the Reference to be made where there is difference of opinion between Judges of the Division Bench and Reference is required to be made to the third Judge. Pointing out to the newly inserted Rule 9 of Chapter-I of the Rules of 1960, he would submit that under the said Rule, Reference to the larger bench would arise only when one Division Bench differs from the decision of any other Division Bench upon a point of law. He would urge that by the order of Reference, the Division Bench has not recorded any disagreement with the judgment of other Division Bench and, there being no disagreement, neither Rule-7 of Chapter-I nor Rule-9 of Chapter-I of the Rules of 1960 would apply.

(3.) Before dealing with the submission of Mr. Talekar, it would be necessary to advert to the facts of the case giving rise to this Reference. Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2011 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 15/12/2011 cancelling the petitioner's initial appointment as Shikshan-Sevak with effect from 24/11/2005 resulting in termination of her services as an assistant teacher in primary school run by the Municipal Corporation of Malegaon and the consequent relieving order dtd. 15/2/2011 passed by the headmistress. Prior to the filing of the present Petition, the Petitioner was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.689 of 2006 filed before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court seeking quashing of the order dtd. 31/12/2005 cancelling the admission of petitioners to the Postal D.Ed. Course. The Petition was filed by 22 petitioners, of which the petitioner herein claims to be petitioner no.18, although there appears to be some discrepancy as far as the name of the petitioner is concerned.