1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1410 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1410 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1410 OF 2005 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7817 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.7817 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.7817 OF 2004 Radhakanta G. Sarangi ...Applicant Radhakanta G. Sarangi ...Applicant Radhakanta G. Sarangi ...Applicant Vs. Vs. Vs. Manjra Charitable Trust & Ors. ...Respondents Manjra Charitable Trust & Ors. ...Respondents Manjra Charitable Trust & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr. S.D. Thokade Adv. for Applicant Mr. S.D. Thokade Adv. for Applicant Mr. S.D. Thokade Adv. for Applicant Mr. A.L. Gore Adv. for Respondent No.2 Mr. A.L. Gore Adv. for Respondent No.2 Mr. A.L. Gore Adv. for Respondent No.2 CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER , 2005 DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER , 2005 DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER , 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. On behalf of the Respondent reply has been 1. On behalf of the Respondent reply has been 1. On behalf of the Respondent reply has been filed today. Learned Counsel seeks time to file filed today. Learned Counsel seeks time to file filed today. Learned Counsel seeks time to file rejoinder. Application for adjournment rejected for rejoinder. Application for adjournment rejected for rejoinder. Application for adjournment rejected for the order to be passed. the order to be passed. the order to be passed. 2. The present application by the applicant is 2. The present application by the applicant is 2. The present application by the applicant is for recalling the order dated 29th April, 2005. That for recalling the order dated 29th April, 2005. That for recalling the order dated 29th April, 2005. That Petition was disposed of on the statement made that a Petition was disposed of on the statement made that a Petition was disposed of on the statement made that a candidate had already been selected. candidate had already been selected. candidate had already been selected. 3. The Petitioner had not been regularly The Petitioner had not been regularly The Petitioner had not been regularly selected. His services were terminated. He had selected. His services were terminated. He had selected. His services were terminated. He had preferred an appeal. The appeal against termination preferred an appeal. The appeal against termination preferred an appeal. The appeal against termination has been dismissed. Considering that the relief as has been dismissed. Considering that the relief as has been dismissed. Considering that the relief as prayed for in the Petition could not have been granted prayed for in the Petition could not have been granted prayed for in the Petition could not have been granted 2 and as such there is no question to recall the order and as such there is no question to recall the order and as such there is no question to recall the order dated 29th April, 2005. Hence that prayer clause dated 29th April, 2005. Hence that prayer clause dated 29th April, 2005. Hence that prayer clause cannot be granted. cannot be granted. cannot be granted. 4. The second relief is to initiate appropriate 4. The second relief is to initiate appropriate 4. The second relief is to initiate appropriate action against Respondent No.2 R.B. Kulkarni for action against Respondent No.2 R.B. Kulkarni for action against Respondent No.2 R.B. Kulkarni for intentionally making false statement on oath before intentionally making false statement on oath before intentionally making false statement on oath before this Court. this Court. this Court. 5. In the instant case by order dated 15th April, 5. In the instant case by order dated 15th April, 5. In the instant case by order dated 15th April, 2005 Petitioner was directed to serve notice on 2005 Petitioner was directed to serve notice on 2005 Petitioner was directed to serve notice on Respondents 1 to 3 on the limited point as to whether Respondents 1 to 3 on the limited point as to whether Respondents 1 to 3 on the limited point as to whether any candidate had been selected. An affidavit was any candidate had been selected. An affidavit was any candidate had been selected. An affidavit was filed before this Court which was taken on record on filed before this Court which was taken on record on filed before this Court which was taken on record on 29th April 2005. That affidavit however, as is now 29th April 2005. That affidavit however, as is now 29th April 2005. That affidavit however, as is now pointed out was sworn on 2nd December 2004. In the pointed out was sworn on 2nd December 2004. In the pointed out was sworn on 2nd December 2004. In the reply now filed it is apparent that one Mr. P.M. reply now filed it is apparent that one Mr. P.M. reply now filed it is apparent that one Mr. P.M. Aphale was selected by Selection Committee and issued Aphale was selected by Selection Committee and issued Aphale was selected by Selection Committee and issued letter by appointment dated 16th June 2005. It letter by appointment dated 16th June 2005. It letter by appointment dated 16th June 2005. It appears that till the date of the affidavit the said appears that till the date of the affidavit the said appears that till the date of the affidavit the said Aphale had not joined. It is thus clear that Dr. Aphale had not joined. It is thus clear that Dr. Aphale had not joined. It is thus clear that Dr. Ramesh Kulkarni, when he filed the affidavit on 29th Ramesh Kulkarni, when he filed the affidavit on 29th Ramesh Kulkarni, when he filed the affidavit on 29th April 2005, did not disclose this fact to the Court. April 2005, did not disclose this fact to the Court. April 2005, did not disclose this fact to the Court. From the affidavit filed today it is further clear From the affidavit filed today it is further clear From the affidavit filed today it is further clear that subsequent to the order of this Court the that subsequent to the order of this Court the that subsequent to the order of this Court the Selection Committed met on 1st July, 2005 and has Selection Committed met on 1st July, 2005 and has Selection Committed met on 1st July, 2005 and has selected one Suryakant A. Nagari from DTLT category selected one Suryakant A. Nagari from DTLT category selected one Suryakant A. Nagari from DTLT category who has joined the post. In these circumstances we who has joined the post. In these circumstances we who has joined the post. In these circumstances we have to consider whether the relief in terms of prayer have to consider whether the relief in terms of prayer have to consider whether the relief in terms of prayer 3 clause (b) should be considered. clause (b) should be considered. clause (b) should be considered. 6. Petitioner had no right to the post. There is 6. Petitioner had no right to the post. There is 6. Petitioner had no right to the post. There is on the part of the 2nd Respondent’s omission to point on the part of the 2nd Respondent’s omission to point on the part of the 2nd Respondent’s omission to point out the fact that Aphale had not joined. The order of out the fact that Aphale had not joined. The order of out the fact that Aphale had not joined. The order of the Court had directed to furnish information whether the Court had directed to furnish information whether the Court had directed to furnish information whether a candidate was selected. In our opinion because of a candidate was selected. In our opinion because of a candidate was selected. In our opinion because of this omission which may amount to misrepresentation, this omission which may amount to misrepresentation, this omission which may amount to misrepresentation, it cannot be said that the relief in terms of prayer it cannot be said that the relief in terms of prayer it cannot be said that the relief in terms of prayer clause ought to be granted. The fact remains that the clause ought to be granted. The fact remains that the clause ought to be granted. The fact remains that the Petitioner was selected on temporary basis and the Petitioner was selected on temporary basis and the Petitioner was selected on temporary basis and the services came to be terminated. The order of services came to be terminated. The order of services came to be terminated. The order of termination was challenged in appeal and the College termination was challenged in appeal and the College termination was challenged in appeal and the College Tribunal did not find any merits to interfere with the Tribunal did not find any merits to interfere with the Tribunal did not find any merits to interfere with the order of termination. For the aforesaid reasons we order of termination. For the aforesaid reasons we order of termination. For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined, on the facts as they stand, to are not inclined, on the facts as they stand, to are not inclined, on the facts as they stand, to consider the grant of the relief as prayed for. On consider the grant of the relief as prayed for. On consider the grant of the relief as prayed for. On behalf of Dr. Kulkarni learned Counsel makes a behalf of Dr. Kulkarni learned Counsel makes a behalf of Dr. Kulkarni learned Counsel makes a statement that Dr. Kulkarni is tendering his apology statement that Dr. Kulkarni is tendering his apology statement that Dr. Kulkarni is tendering his apology for not having disclosed the true and correct facts in for not having disclosed the true and correct facts in for not having disclosed the true and correct facts in sofaras the nonjoinder of Mr. Aphale on the post. We sofaras the nonjoinder of Mr. Aphale on the post. We sofaras the nonjoinder of Mr. Aphale on the post. We accept the same. accept the same. accept the same. 5. Considering the above we find no merit in this 5. Considering the above we find no merit in this 5. Considering the above we find no merit in this application, which is accordingly rejected. application, which is accordingly rejected. application, which is accordingly rejected. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) 4 (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)