1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.781 OF 2011 (Mahesh s/o Shankarrao Ambokar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. ------- CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2011 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petition is directed against the order dated 21/1/2011 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby order of confirmation dated 3/7/2010 of the petitioner as Assistant Section Officer came to be stayed. At the outset, Shri Patil, learned Counsel 2 for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, states that the respondent University had issued advertisement in the year 2007-08 for filling up 56 different posts, such as posts of Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Technical Assistants, Accountants, Dairy Management Assistants, Research Assistants, Plant Operators, etc. It is submitted that at the later point of time, it was noticed that some irregularities/ malpractices had taken place while filling up such posts and, therefore, one-man Committee of Shri Limaye, Divisional Commissioner was appointed to verify these aspects and submit report. It is further submitted that a report was submitted by the one-man Committee wherein it was mentioned that there were irregularities/malpractices committed in filling up such posts by the Authorities. Shri Patil further states that another one-man Committee of Dr. Bhusari was appointed to look into the said aspects and the said Committee also submitted a report that some irregularities/illegalities were noticed in the process of filling up the above posts. The Chancellor has accepted both the reports and directed the respondent University to take action 3 against persons, who are involved in the illegalities/irregularities, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner was issued certificate of successful completion of probation period vide order dated 3/7/2010. It is contended that by virtue of the impugned order, confirmation of petitioner in service is kept in abeyance and grant of further increment to which petitioner is otherwise entitled is also delayed. It is submitted that if this Court is not inclined to show indulgence, then it may be observed that if petitioner is not involved in the irregularities/malpractices, etc. then he should be given confirmation on the basis of successful completion of probation period and also increments to which he is otherwise entitled. In the backdrop of above referred facts, it is evident that impugned communication is issued in view of two reports submitted by one-man Committees, which were accepted by the Chancellor, who directed the respondent University to proceed according to law against those persons, who are 4 involved in the irregularities/malpractices. It is in this view of the matter, we do not propose to show indulgence. However, if petitioner is not involved in any kind of irregularities/malpractices/corruption, in that event, he would be entitled to get confirmation in view of certificate of successful completion of probation period issued vide order dated 3/7/2010 by the University and also increments to which he is otherwise entitled and if there is no other legal impediment in granting the same. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj