WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3475/2011 Bhagwant Subhanrao Jagtap. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Smt.Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Ganesh V. Mohekar, Advocate for respondent no.7. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-== WRIT PETITION NO.1483/2011 Shivshankar Eknath Rajmane. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents.. Smt.Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Ganesh V. Mohekar, Advocate for respondent no.7. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-== WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 2 - WRIT PEITION NO.4891/2011 Vishnu Shabrao Bahekar. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Smt.Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Ganesh V. Mohekar, Advocate for respondent no.7. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-== WRIT PEITION NO.1482/2011 Satyawati Laxmanrao Bansode. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Smt.Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PEITION NO.1485/2011 Baserao Sudamrao Gavai. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 3 - ..... Smt.Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.4569/2011 Rajshri Ashokrao Shinde. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. Smt.Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 28.09.2011 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction that the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions being Writ Petition No.610/2006 along with other group of writ petitions, may also be made applicable to the present petitioners. WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 4 - 3] The present petitioners had approached this Court challenging the cancellation of their admissions in the year 2005. Their petitions were dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.4.2008. The petitioners had sought review of the judgment and order dismissing the petitions. The Court vide order dated 4.6.2008 also dismissed their review petitions. The petitioners further went to the Apex Court by way Special Leave Petitions, which also were dismissed on 14.7.2008. 4] In the intervening period, the bunch of petitions being Writ Petition No. 610/2006 along with companion matters, came up for hearing before this Court. The said petitions were allowed by the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010. One of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a party to the said judgment. The Court, after taking into consideration the report of Jagtap Committee as well as the fact that the petitions were filed and admitted in 2006 and the interim orders were operating therein since then and that the petitioners were not only continuing in the employment but the respective Education Officers of the Zilla Parishad had also granted approval to their services and most of the petitioners were working against the sanctioned posts, allowed the said petitions. 5] After noticing the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 delivered by this Court, the present petitioners, whose petitions, review petitions and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, have now approached this Court by way of WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 5 - present petitions. 6] Smt.Asha S. Rasal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners in the present petitions and the petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions decided on 7.12.2010, stand on the same pedestal. It is submitted that the admissions of the petitioners in the present petitions so also all the petitioners in the petitions decided by this Court on 7.12.2010, were canceled on the basis of report of Jagtap Committee. It is submitted that the petitions of the present petitioners have been dismissed, whereas the petitions of those petitioners have been allowed and, therefore, in spite of dismissal of the earlier petitions of the present petitioners, this Court should entertain the present petitions and give benefit of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 to the present petitioners also. Smt.A.S. Rasal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed & others V/s State of Kerala & another [ (2000) 6 SCC, 359 ]. 7] No doubt, that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the aforesaid judgment is well placed. The Apex Court, in the said case, has held that dismissal of the SLP does not amount to merger. It has been held that unless SLP is converted into appeal, the doctrine of merger would not be applicable. It has further been held that even after dismissal of SLP, a party would be entitled to file a review petition. It has been held that only after leave is granted WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 6 - and appeal is entertained by way of SLP, the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the review petition is ousted. However, in the present case, not only the petitions of the present petitioners have been dismissed but the review petitions have also been dismissed. The judgment and order passed in the case of the present petitioners and the orders passed in the review petitions were vehemently pressed into service by the learned AGPs appearing in the petitions decided by this Court on 7.12.2010. In the paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25, this Court has considered the judgment and order passed in the case of the present petitioners. This Court in paragraph 26 has clearly held that mere dismissal of the present petitioners’ petitions in limine and dismissal of the SLPs by the Apex Court would not constitute any declaration of law either by this Court or the Apex Court. It was further noticed that the Division Bench which dismissed the present petitioners petitions was also pointed about the pendency of the petitions, which are decided by this Court on 7.12.2010. This Court noticed that the Division Bench itself has observed that the said petitions will be dealt with by the Court when the said petitions will be taken up for hearing. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court found that the dismissal of the present petitioners’ petitions and the dismissal of their SLPs would not amount to a declaration of law to constitute a binding precedent. As such, this Court found that even though present petitioners’ petitions were dismissed, the petitions, which were decided on 7.12.2010, could be decided on their own merits. After considering all the aspects of the matter, relevant legal position, the report of Jagtap Committee and also the tests of equity, WPs 3475/11, 1483/11, 4891/11, 1482/11, 1485/11 & 4569/11 - 7 - this Court had allowed the petitions vide the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010. 8] However, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, after this Court having dismissed their petitions and the review petitions and thereafter dismissal of their SLPs, we find that judicial propriety would not permit us to reopen the present petitioners’ cases. If such a thing is permitted, the very concept of finality, which is required to be achieved to a lis between the parties, would be frustrated. Though we have all the sympathies with the petitioners, on account of judicial propriety, we find that it will not be appropriate for us to entertain the present petitions. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) ndk/c2891110