HARIDAS VIKRAMJI MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Adv. Bagde for appellant/original petitioner and learned AGP Dhumale for respondents 1, 5 and 6. Nobody appears for other respondents.

(2.) Submission of Adv. Bagde is, learned single Judge has passed the order in a rather pedantic and mechanical manner without looking to the arguments advanced or legal position pointed out. He does not dispute the basic facts. According to him, there are total four Schools run by same Management and, therefore, four posts of Headmasters. Merely because one of these four Schools is an exclusive school for Girls, post of Headmaster therein cannot be excluded for the purposes of computing reservation of 24%. He contends that while applying Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of New English High School Association v. Baldev, reported at 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 882 though requirement of reservation at 24% has been noticed, fact that there were four posts of Headmasters with Management, has been ignored. Treating post of Headmaster in Girls' school as a distinct class, by itself, only three posts have been accepted and this has resulted in failure to apply stipulated reservation at 24%. He contends that the issue though specifically raised, has not been addressed to by learned single Judge.

(3.) In order to point out the obligations of Court even while writing judgment of concurrence, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of U. Manjunath Rao v. U. Chandrashekhar and another, reported in (2017) SCCR 837.