1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3936 OF 2010 Yashwantrao s/o Deorao Pardhe .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary of Ministry for Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.B.R.Kedar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Mr.A.R.Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30th April 2010 PER COURT : 1. The core question raised in the present petition is whether a candidate, who does not hold the requisite qualification of D.Ed. but holds the qualification of having passed XIIth standard with M.C.V.C. would be eligible to appear for the Common Entrance Test scheduled to be held on 2.5.2010 for the recruitment of Shikshan Sevaks on contractual basis. 2 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the advertisement which came to be issued by the respondents inviting applications for the said examination. Undisputedly, the eligibility which is prescribed for appearing for the examination is D.Ed. with H.S.C. The petitioner undisputedly does not hold the requisite qualification but claims to have passed the XIIth examination with M.C.V.C. In that background, our attention was invited to Clause (2) of the said advertisement which is in respect of eligibility which is prescribed for candidates for appointment as untrained Shikshan Sevaks. Reading the aforesaid clause it would be clear that an exception is carved out for candidates belonging to S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC. The exception is that the candidates belonging to S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC would be appointed as untrained Shikshan Sevaks in the event candidates duly qualified from these are not available for appointment. Further perusal of the said clause reveals that candidates, who do not hold the requisite qualification as prescribed in the eligibility clause would be permitted to appear for the Common Entrance Test provided they belong to either S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD or SBC and the appointment as untrained Shikshan Sevaks would be made strictly on the basis of the marks secured by each candidate in the Common Entrance Test. A further relaxation appears to have been carved out for candidates belonging to S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC in respect of candidates who have passed H.S.C. with M.C.V.C. 3 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the Government Resolution dated 16.12.2009 and particularly Clause 2 of the said Resolution which provides that relaxation would be available in respect of candidates who have appeared for H.S.C. with M.C.V.C. but had not passed D.Ed. Clause 5 of the said Government Resolution reiterates the clause which is reproduced in the advertisement regarding relaxation which is carved out for candidates belonging to S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that Clause 2 independently gives a right to the candidates, who have passed H.S.C. examination with M.C.V.C. to appear for the Common Entrance Test and Clause 5 which carves out exception in respect of S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC candidates is to be read in isolation as it carves out exception in respect of persons belonging to those castes. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further referred to the Government Resolution dated 31.7.2009, particularly Clause 5 which makes a reference to the candidates, who have appeared for M.C.V.C. examination. The aforesaid Government Resolution makes a reference to the earlier Government Resolution dated 5.2.2009. 5. Preface to the said Government Resolution clearly indicates that initially the Government had decided to start Wasti schools and for the 4 appointment of Shikshan Sevaks, a relaxation is carved out in respect of candidates who have appeared for H.S.C.examination with M.C.V.C. but do not possess the qualification of D.Ed. By the aforesaid Government Resolution, it was mandated that appointment be given to such candidates on the condition that they shall acquire the requisite qualification of D.Ed. The said Government Resolution dated 5.2.2009 deals with such appointments and deals with the right of such candidates to appear for postal D.Ed. and acquired the requisite qualification. The aforesaid right is further reiterated in the Government Resolution dated 31.7.2009. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents have urged before us that Clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated 16.12.2009 and Clause 5 of the Government Resolution have to be read harmoniously and if the said Government Resolutions are not read harmoniously, Clause 5 of the said Government Resolution would be rendered either redundant or otiose. 7. If the interpretation sought to be put by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then independent right is carved out in respect of candidates, who have appeared for H.S.C. examination with M.C.V.C. to appear for Common Entrance Test. Clause 5 of the said Government Resolution reiterates that candidates belonging to S.T.,VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC who do not hold the qualification of D.Ed. but hold 5 qualification of H.S.C. with M.C.V.C. would be permitted to appear for Common Entrance Test and wold be considered for appointment as untrained Shikshan Sevaks in the event regular candidates for the post are not available. If the interpretation sought to be put by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, Clause 5 would obviously be rendered otiose or redundant. The interpretation of the learned Counsel for the petitioner would lead to the result that all candidates regardless whether they belong to S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC who do not hold the qualification of D.Ed., but hold the requisite qualification of H.S.C. with M.C.V.C. would be eligible to be appointed as untrained Shikshan Sevaks and consequently would be eligible to appear for the examination. This would lead to render Clause 5 of the Government Resolution as redundant or otiose. 8. According to us the advertisement is explicit and clear and the Government Resolution adverted to above on the basis of which Clause 2 came to be incorporated in the advertisement clearly spells out an exception in respect of those candidates belonging to S.T., VJA, NTB, NTC, NTD and SBC who do not hold the requisite qualification but hold the qualification of H.S.C. with M.C.V.C. would be entitled to appear for the examination and would be entitled to be considered for appointment as untrained Shikshan Sevaks if the above referred candidates are not available. 6 9. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected and the petition which is sans merit is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3936.10wp)