1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2122 OF 2008 Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi .. Petitioner Vs. The Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Dist. and another .. Respondents Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar and Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioner. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate with Ms. Lata Desai and Ms. Pallavi Divekar for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. J.S. Saluja, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In Writ Petition No.2122 of 2008, the petitioner has raised challenge to the advertisement dated 29th May, 2008 (Exhibit `A' to the petition) issued by the Security Guards Board for employment of security guards. Further, it is submitted that the applications 2 submitted by the petitioner whose names are given in Exhibit `L' have been rejected on different grounds and the reasoning given in the order dated 29.5.2008 cannot stand to the scrutiny of law and, therefore, it is prayed that this order be quashed. 2. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent- Board, it is not necessary for us to go into the factual matrix of this case. Suffice it to note that the members of the petitioner are the applicants who have submitted their applications in furtherance to the advertisement dated 29th May, 2008 and it is urged that their applications to the Board for the registration have been incorrectly rejected. 3. The principal challenge to these notifications is on the ground that the Board violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Clause 15 of the application form reads as under: “15. Are you project affected: Yes/No if yes, true copy of the certificate issued by authorized project officer (should be within the Areas of Greater Bombay and Thane District)” There is also a mention of the sentence “Preference will be given to Project affected/sons of the soil” appearing in the advertisement dated 3 29th May, 2008. It is urged that the Board is discriminating between persons on geographical limitations as well as on a classification which is impermissible in law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Board without going into the merits of this contention stated as under: i) That the Board shall issue a corrigendum to the advertisement dated 29th May, 2008. In this corrigendum to the main advertisement, it will be stated that neither clause 15 of the application form nor the expression used in the advertisement dated 29th May, 2008 as aforenoticed will be given effect to in any manner whatsoever; ii) The applications already received will be considered however, without any preference being granted in terms of the advertisement or the application form as afore-stated; iii) The Corrigendum will be issued within two weeks and further two weeks' time will be granted to the applicants to submit their applications which 4 obviously, will not contain either clause 15 or the discriminatory line appearing in the advertisement dated 29th May, 2008; iv) In other words, all previous and fresh applications will be considered without providing any reservation in the manner indicated in the advertisement dated 29th May, 2008 or the application form. However, project affected persons will be given preference in consonance with statutory provisions and/or, as the case may be, under the Government Resolution dated 19th June, 2006 or any other provision of law for the time being in force; 4. We find that the statement made on behalf of the Board is fair and equitable. 5. The offending clauses having been deleted, it will be appropriate for the court to direct scrutiny of the applications in accordance with law. We may notice that great prejudice will be caused to the applicants who have already applied and there will be inordinate delay in giving effect to the appointments if the entire 5 process is quashed. The purpose is to provide a fair opportunity to all the persons to be considered in accordance with law. Thus, we find the statement made on behalf of the Security Guards Board to be just and fair and would meet the ends of justice. 6. We also make it clear that in the case of applications covered under prayer clause (b) of the writ petition, where the employer's certificate could not be submitted as the applicant may be in dispute with such employer, the appropriate authority and the Board should not solely reject the application on this ground as they can ask for copies of the case papers if the cases between the employer and Union are pending or even call for the records of the employer and examine them through the Inspector and not outright reject such applications. Such a direction would be necessary for the reason that if there is a serious dispute between the Union and the employer, there is a likelihood that the employer may not be issuing the certificate despite the fact that the employee might have served satisfactorily. 6 7. For these reasons, we dispose of this writ petition in the above terms. Respondents will abide by their statement. No order as to costs. 8. The Board will reconsider the old as well as new applications expeditiously and ensure that there should not be any undue delay in considering the same. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.