P. UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. S.B. SALUNKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the College authorities and the State Government. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the materials on record ourselves we have not the slightest doubt that the writ petitioner has worked as a Stenographer or Steno -typist in the Respondent -College from the date of his appointment. Once we hold that the petitioner has worked as a Stenographer or Steno -typist in the College, there should be a no reason to deny him the scale to which a Stenographer or Steno -typist is entitled to unless it can be demonstrated that he did not have the requisite qualifications even though he worked in fact. Nothing has been brought before to us to lead us to conclude with certainly that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications. We have searched in vain in the affidavits of the Respondents as to what the requisite qualifications were and on what score the Petitioner failed. Our attention has been drawn to several correspondence made by the Respondent -College as well as the Respondent -State where they have described the petitioner as a Stenographer. That being so, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a Stenographer and worked as such.

(2.) AS we have already indicated, since the respondents have not been able to clearly spell out as to what were the requisite qualifications for the post of a Stenographer, it is not possible for us to deny the petitioner the reliefs claimed on the bald assertion of the respondent that he did not have the requisite qualification. We have taken note of a Resolution dated 1st August, 1979 of the Maharashtra Government, quoted at page 7 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated 'upon careful consideration of the recommendation, the Government has decided not to deny the benefit of new scale to any of the existing holders of the posts' and the scales were applied automatically to all the existing incumbents even though they did not possess the requisite qualifications. That being so, even if there is some doubt as to the petitioner having the requisite qualification, there should be no reason why he should be denied the benefit of a scale admissible to a Stenographer since he has been employed to work and has in fact worked as a Stenographer for all these years.

(3.) RULE is made absolute as above but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.