WP No. 6809/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6809 OF 2010 Vaijnath s/o. Dinkar Hake, R/o. At Nalgaon, Post-Shirala, Tal. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad Through Its C.E.O. Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondents. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 18th October 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by the respondent No. 1 on 6.7.2010. By this order the petitioner came to be removed from service of Zilla Parishad. Both the sides are heard. Affidavit in reply is filed by one officer of respondents. WP No. 6809/10 2 2. The petitioner was working as a Peon (Class IV post) in the office of Village Panchayat, Nalgaon, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad. By notification dated 19.8.2005 the State Government amended the Rules of Recruitment of Zilla Parishad, 1967 and made a provision for giving the opportunity to persons working in the Village Panchayat to get employment in Zilla Parishad by way of nomination. Such employees of Village Panchayat were, however, require to possess the prescribed educational qualification and they were also to satisfy the other eligibility conditions mentioned in the Amended Rules and the Original Rules. This opportunity was made available for employees who were working with the Village Panchayat for more than ten years. For getting Class III post, it was necessary for such employees to have passed tying exam held by Government for two languages [ Marathi and English ] in addition to possessing the educational qualification. If the candidate had passed typing test in one language, it was possible to appoint him, provided that he was able to pass the typing test of the other language within two years of the date of appointment. 3. The petitioner applied for Class III post and he produced a zerox copy of certificate allegedly issued by Maharashtra Staff Bureau of Exams, Pune, G.C.C. Exam and he contended that he had appeared for the exam through Joshi's Typing Institute, Paranda. As per his WP No. 6809/10 3 contentions, he had passed the test of typing of Marathi language of 30 speed in May 1998. In view of the aforesaid eligibility conditions and this record, appointment by nomination was given to the petitioner on Class III post. As per conditions prescribed in aforesaid notification, the petitioner resigned from the original post. 4. For verification of the certificates, correspondence was made by the respondents with the petitioner and by letter dated 21.4.2008 the petitioner was directed to produce the original certificate of typing issued by aforesaid authority. In the letter dated 25.9.2009 the petitioner informed that the original was missing. Respondents waited for some time and they sent more letters. The last letter was sent on 15.11.2009. In the letter dated 20.10.2009 the petitioner informed that he had taken steps for appearing in exam and he would produce such certificate in future. Thus, the petitioner admitted that he had not passed such typing test. If the petitioner had really passed the typing test and a zerox copy which was produced for getting appointment was in respect of his certificate, he could have easily obtained another copy of certificate or some correspondence from the Maharashtra State Bureau of Exam, Pune in that regard. 5. Inquiry was held by the respondents and it revealed that the petitioner had produced a forged document. It appeared that WP No. 6809/10 4 there was over writing on the name appearing in the zerox copy and the certificate bearing such number was issued to one Kum. Shaikh Rehana. Even after giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioner could not produce the certificate and as he was not satisfying the eligibility conditions for getting the appointment, he came to be removed from the service on 6.7.2010. 6. It was submitted for the petitioner in this proceeding that it was necessary for the respondents to hold departmental enquiry as they wanted to terminate him. This submission is not acceptable. The petitioner was not satisfying the eligibility conditions for getting the appointment by nomination and so he was removed from the service. The removal is not due to misconduct during the service on Class III post and he had obtained the appointment by deceiving the respondents. It was submitted that a separate criminal case is also filed against the petitioner in this regard. In view of these facts, this Court holds that it is not a fit case for using extraordinary jurisdiction. So the petition stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/