GURUNATH DINKAR MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No. 1-State, dated 17-5-2012, discharging him from judicial services.

(3.) The petitioner completed his Five Years Law Degree Course in the year 2001. He states that he comes from a middle-class agriculturist family. After obtaining the Law Degree, he applied for issuance of Sanad to practise as an Advocate. That was issued by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 4-7-2001. The petitioner submits that he has no legal background. He started practise at Kolhapur. After having gained sufficient experience, in the year 2010 the petitioner applied for being appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The petitioner was selected for the said post. An appointment order was issued on 28-12-2011. That order refers to a Notification dated 23-12-2011. The petitioner was directed to report at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy & Indian Mediation Centre & Training Institute at Uttan, District Thane. The training course was to commence on 9-1-2012. The petitioner reported for the said training on the day he was given charge as an Extra Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara. The duration of the training was 16 weeks. It was to end on 28-4-2012. The petitioner's case is that, the course is residential inasmuch as the trainees are required to stay and reside in the bachelor's accommodation. The petitioner successfully completed the training course and in that regard reliance is placed on the Certificate issued on 28-4-2012 (page 27 of the paper-book). It is then submitted that the petitioner did not in any manner misconduct or misbehave during this training. There was no complaint from any colleague or faculty member, much less the Directors at the Judicial Academy.

(4.) The petitioner thereafter reported back to the post to which he was appointed at Satara. The petitioner was working sincerely, but on 28-5-2012 he received a letter posted on 23-5-2012, issued by the Registrar General of respondent No. 2, informing him that as per the Notification dated 17-5-2012, a copy of which was annexed to the said letter, the petitioner has been discharged from judicial service.