{"id":195103,"date":"2010-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-25T05:58:20","modified_gmt":"2016-07-25T00:28:20","slug":"director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
    wp1580.10.odt                                                                          1\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n          WRIT PETITION NOS.1580\/2010, 1575\/2010, 1576\/2010,\n\n        1577\/2010, 1578\/2010, 1582\/2010, 1583\/2010, 1584\/2010,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n    1586\/2010, 1587\/2010, 1588\/2910, 1589\/2010 AND 2071\/2010,\n\n                                 2072\/2010, 2073\/2010.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1580\/2010\n                                       \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                                      \n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n             \n\n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region,\n                               Nagpur.\n          \n\n\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Sanjay s\/o Govindraoji Chandurkar\n                  Aged about 34 years, Occupation Ex-GDS BPM,\n                  Malegaon Branch Post Office, Tahsil Saoner,\n\n\n\n\n\n                  District Nagpur.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          2\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1575\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region,\n                               Nagpur.\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n                                        ig   ...VERSUS...\n                                      \n    RESPONDENT :- Sunil s\/o Gyaniram Thombre,\n                  Aged about 29 years, Ex-GDS BPM,\n                  Mumdhawda Branch Post Office, Tahsil Tirora,\n                  District Gondia.\n             \n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n          \n\n\n\n            [S\/Shri M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1576\/2010\n\n\n\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Nagpur Mfl. North Sub-Division,\n                               Kampthi - 441001, Tahsil Kampthi,\n                               District Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Nagpur Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n                            3. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          3\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENTS :- 1. Vilas s\/o Dhanraj Pardhi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                      Aged about 27 years Ex. G.D.S., M.D.,\n                      Dattawadi Sub Post Office, R\/o Dhamna\n                      Village, Tq. And District Nagpur.\n\n                            2. Shrawan Bapusa Salam,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                               Officiating GDS M.D. Dhamna,\n                               Taluka and Distt. Nagpur.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondents]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                       \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1577\/2010\n                                      \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n             \n\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n          \n\n\n\n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Yogesh s\/o Kawduji Tidke,\n                  Aged about 33 years, Ex- GDS BPM,\n\n\n\n\n\n                  Silli Branch Office, Resident of - Silli Village,\n                  District Bhandara.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          4\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1578\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n                                        ig   ...VERSUS...\n                                      \n    RESPONDENT :- Ashish s\/o Motiram Anjankar,\n                  Aged about - 23 years, Ex-GDS BPM,\n                  Pipla (Kinkhedi), Tq. Kalmeshwar, District\n                  Nagpur.\n             \n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n          \n\n\n\n            [S\/Shri M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1582\/2010\n\n\n\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Nagpur Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n                            3. Sub Divisional Inspector (Post),\n                               Gondia Sub Division, Gondia - 441601.\n\n                            4. Union of India through The Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          5\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Umesh Pritamlal Yede,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                  Ex-Gramin Dak Sevak, - Branch Post Master\n                  (GDSBPM) Pandhri Branch Post Office,\n                  Pandhri, Tahsil Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1583\/2010\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-\n                                       \n                            1. Director of Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 440010.\n                                      \n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Nagpur Mofussil Division, Nagpur.\n\n                            3. Sub Divisional Inspector (Post),\n             \n\n                               Gondia Sub Division, Gondia - 441601.\n          \n\n\n\n                            4. Union of India through The Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication, New Delhi.\n\n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n\n\n\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Shivshankar Baburao Dandhare,\n                  Ex-GDS Branch Post Master, Thane Petrol\n                  Pump, Taluka & District Bhandara.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          6\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1584\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                               Nagpur Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n                            3. Assistant Superintendent of Police Offices,\n                               Bhandara South Sub-Division, Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                                             ...VERSUS...\n                                       \n    RESPONDENT :- Chintaman s\/o Ramaji Raut,\n                  Aged about 25 years, Occupation Nil, resident\n                  of Opara, Tahsil Lakhandur, District Bhandara.\n                                      \n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n             \n\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1586\/2010\n          \n\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n\n                            2. Director, Postal Services, Nagpur Region,\n                               Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Manoj s\/o Ramesh Bansod,\n                  Aged about 32 years, Occupation - Nil,\n                  Resident of Chanderi (Malipar), Tahsil and\n                  District Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          7\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parklhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1587\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n                                       \n                            3. Assistant Superintendent of Police Offices,\n                               Bhandara South Sub-Division, Bhandara.\n                                      \n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Gajanan s\/o Bhaskar Matale,\n                             Aged about 31 years : Occupation - Nil,\n             \n\n                             resident of Hardoli, District Bhandara.\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n          \n\n\n\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1588\/2010\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n\n\n\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          8\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Jitendra s\/o Sadhuji Sarve,\n                  Aged about 25 years, Ex-GDS BPM, Madgi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                  Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                       \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.1589\/2010\n                                      \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n             \n\n\n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.\n          \n\n\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,\n                               New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Bharatlal s\/o Tukdoji Gurnule\n                  Aged about 26 years, Ex-GDS BPM,\n\n\n\n\n\n                  Ghonadi Branch Post Office, Resident of\n                  Ghonadi Village, Tahsil Deori, District Gondia.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          9\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.2071\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n                            2. Post Master General, Nagpur Region,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                               Shankar Nagar, Nagpur.\n\n                            3. Director, Postal Services, Nagpur Region,\n                               Nagpur - 10.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                            4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n                                        ig   ...VERSUS...\n                                      \n    RESPONDENT :- Sanjot Gangaram Borkar,\n                  Aged about 28 years, Occupation Nil,\n                  resident of Post Khandala, Taluka Sakoli,\n                  District Bhandara.\n             \n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n          \n\n\n\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.2072\/2010\n\n\n\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-           1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n\n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n\n\n\n\n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                         10\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Kunjilal s\/o Balaji Raut,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                  Aged about 32 years, Ex-GDS BPM,\n                  Moharna Branch Post Office, Resident of\n                  Moharna Village, Tahsil Lakhandur,\n                  District Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.2073\/2010\n\n\n    PETITIONERS:-\n                                       \n                            1. Director, Postal Services,\n                               Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10.\n                                      \n                            2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,\n                               Mofussil Division, Nagpur - 12.\n\n                            3. Post Master General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.\n             \n\n\n                            4. Union of India, through Secretary,\n          \n\n\n\n                               Ministry of Communication (Department of\n                               of Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.\n\n                                             ...VERSUS...\n\n\n\n\n\n    RESPONDENT :- Pyarelal Thuna Ganvir,\n                  Aged about 35 years, Resident of Shenda,\n                  Taluka Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n            [Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for petitioners]\n            [S\/Shri A.S. Chandurkar, M.R. Parkhi, P.N. Shende, Advs. for respondent]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                11\/27\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                                         CORAM :-        S.A. BOBDE AND\n                                                         A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n    Date of reserving the judgment                 :-      17.08.2010\n    Date of pronouncing the judgment               :-      17.09.2010\n\n\n    JUDGMENT              (PER : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
    1.              Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally<\/p>\n
    by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.              All these writ petitions, filed by the Director Postal<\/p>\n
    Services, Nagpur and others, arose out of the common judgment<\/p>\n
    dated 9.10.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,<\/p>\n
    Mumbai, Camp at Nagpur, by which the Original Applications<\/p>\n
    filed by the respective respondents in these writ petitions were<\/p>\n
    allowed in terms of paragraph No.8 of the Original Applications,<\/p>\n
    meaning    thereby      that   the   Central        Administrative      Tribunal<\/p>\n
    directed reinstatement with payment of T.R.C.A. from the date of<\/p>\n
    termination till date of reinstatement and continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n
    3.              In support of the writ petitions, the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
    for the petitioners made the following submissions.\n<\/p>\n
                    (1)   Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment)<\/p>\n
    Rules, 2001 are statutory in character and the Tribunal erred in<\/p>\n
    treating the same as mere departmental instructions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     wp1580.10.odt                                                         12\/27<\/p>\n
                    (2)   Rule 4 (C) (3) of the said Rules empower the<\/p>\n
    superior authority to call for the records for appointments of<\/p>\n
    G.D.S., if there is a material irregularity or illegality in the matter<\/p>\n
    of recruitment and the Director of Postal Services being the<\/p>\n
    superior    authority      over   the   appointing   authority,        the<\/p>\n
    appointments were rightly reviewed and having noticed material<\/p>\n
    irregularity after compliance of principles of natural justice, the<\/p>\n
    services of the respondents were terminated.\n<\/p>\n
                    (3)   The Tribunal committed an error in holding that<\/p>\n
    there was no violation of the Rules in the matter of criteria for<\/p>\n
    selection inasmuch as preference was required to be given in<\/p>\n
    accordance with the higher percentage of marks as per<\/p>\n
    examination in all the cases and that being so the candidates<\/p>\n
    having higher marks were not appointed and therefore, there<\/p>\n
    was violation of the Rule regarding recruitment and therefore,<\/p>\n
    Reviewing Authority had a power to correct the said error the<\/p>\n
    same being material irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
                    (4)   The Tribunal should not have decided all the<\/p>\n
    Original Applications together since the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
    were different in different cases.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     wp1580.10.odt                                                         13\/27<\/p>\n
                    (5)   The decision of the Supreme Court in the case<\/p>\n
    of Union of India and others…Versus…Bikash Kuanar,<\/p>\n
    reported in 2006 (8) Supreme Court Cases 192, relied upon<\/p>\n
    by the Tribunal, was not applicable, as the facts in the said case<\/p>\n
    were clearly distinguishable. In the said decision itself the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court held that if the mistake is committed in passing<\/p>\n
    the order, the same may be rectified.\n<\/p>\n
                    (6)   The Tribunal committed an error in observing in<\/p>\n
    paragraph No.18 of its judgment that the submission regarding<\/p>\n
    abolition of posts made before it was oral and no documents<\/p>\n
    were filed before the Tribunal in support of the said submission.\n<\/p>\n
    In fact, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners as<\/p>\n
    now disclosed in the additional affidavit of Ramesh Abhiman<\/p>\n
    Bhavate, dated 16.8.2010, filed before this Court vide paragraph<\/p>\n
    No.9   thereof        documents,   namely,   communication          dated<\/p>\n
    11.8.2003 circulated by letter dated 12.09.2003 (Document<\/p>\n
    No.7) were filed in Original Application No.2249\/2004, filed by<\/p>\n
    Shyamrao Damdu Taiwade and had sought permission to file<\/p>\n
    those documents, showing abolition of posts.          Therefore, the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal erred in not considering the said documents in correct<\/p>\n
    perspective and in the alternative, the learned Counsel prayed<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                              14\/27<\/p>\n
    for remand of the matters to the Tribunal for reconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
    4.              The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed vigilance<\/p>\n
    report dated 1.9.2004 along with the said additional affidavit in<\/p>\n
    this Court and urged that the vigilance report clearly shows the<\/p>\n
    material irregularity in the appointments, namely, that in some<\/p>\n
    cases candidates having more marks were not preferred, as<\/p>\n
    required. According to him, though the said vigilance report is<\/p>\n
    filed before this Court for the first time so also the other<\/p>\n
    documents regarding abolition of posts, the matters are required<\/p>\n
    to be sent back to the Tribunal for consideration thereof.                  The<\/p>\n
    petitioner – Department has taken action against the erring<\/p>\n
    officer, who had made appointments with material irregularity<\/p>\n
    and some of them have punished, which is evident from the<\/p>\n
    documents filed with the affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
    5.              Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
    appearing       in    various   writ   petitions   made     the     following<\/p>\n
    submissions.\n<\/p>\n
                    (1)    The question regarding termination of service<\/p>\n
    being common in all the cases and all the appointments being<\/p>\n
    made in the month of September, 2003 and the termination also<\/p>\n
    having being made after about one-and-a-half – two years, the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                                          15\/27<\/p>\n
    Tribunal committed no wrong in deciding the question of law by<\/p>\n
    the common judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
                    (2)        The additional affidavit dated 16.8.2010 filed in<\/p>\n
    this Court is liable to be rejected since the same amounts to<\/p>\n
    filing   new     evidence         before         this    Court,   which     is     wholly<\/p>\n
    impermissible in the writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
                    (3)        Submission regarding abolition of posts is<\/p>\n
    wholly misplaced and inasmuch as that was never a ground for<\/p>\n
    termination           of    services        of     the      respondents          in     the<\/p>\n
    show-cause-notice that was served on them and therefore, the<\/p>\n
    said new ground could not be allowed to be taken up for the first<\/p>\n
    time in the writ petitions in this Court. The only ground on which<\/p>\n
    the show-cause-notice was issued to the respondents was that<\/p>\n
    the candidates having more marks than them were not given<\/p>\n
    preference.            According       to    the        learned   Counsel        for    the<\/p>\n
    respondents that could not be a ground in the absence of any<\/p>\n
    allegation of bias or favouritism and the employees having<\/p>\n
    rendered service for one-and-a-half – two years, there was no<\/p>\n
    pleading before the Tribunal about the abolition of posts nor any<\/p>\n
    documents were filed pertaining to the respondents regarding<\/p>\n
    abolition of posts. At any rate, the Tribunal has observed that<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                       16\/27<\/p>\n
    abolition of posts was hardly relevant since the employees would<\/p>\n
    be governed by the restructuring and the Tribunal was only<\/p>\n
    required to decide whether the termination was legal or not.\n<\/p>\n
    6.              The learned Counsel for the respondents-employees<\/p>\n
    heavily relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India<\/p>\n
    and others…Versus…Bikash Kaunar, reported in 2006 (8)<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court Cases 192.\n<\/p>\n
    7.              We have gone through the judgment of the Central<\/p>\n
    Administrative Tribunal, which in our opinion, is in necessary<\/p>\n
    details. We have already gone through the pleadings of the<\/p>\n
    parties before the Tribunal so also additional affidavit dated<\/p>\n
    16.8.2010, filed in this Court for the first time, along with<\/p>\n
    documents and vigilance report etc..\n<\/p>\n
    8.              Looking to the nature of controversy that was to be<\/p>\n
    decided by the Tribunal, we do not find any error with the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal in deciding all the Original Applications together since<\/p>\n
    the common questions were involved before it in all the Original<\/p>\n
    Applications and therefore, we find no substance in the<\/p>\n
    submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that<\/p>\n
    the Tribunal should have decided the cases separately.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     wp1580.10.odt                                                            17\/27<\/p>\n
    9.              Without entering into controversy as to whether the<\/p>\n
    said Rules of 2001 are statutory in nature, we upon perusal of<\/p>\n
    the entire record find that there was no material irregularity or<\/p>\n
    illegality on the part of the Appointing Authority in making<\/p>\n
    appointments of the respondents as per the recruitment rules.\n<\/p>\n
    The only objection of the Reviewing Authority and the learned<\/p>\n
    Counsel for the petitioners before us to the appointments has<\/p>\n
    been that those candidates who were having more percentage of<\/p>\n
    marks were not given preference and that is why there is a<\/p>\n
    material irregularity in the matter of appointments so also the<\/p>\n
    violation of the recruitment rules. This is the only ground that<\/p>\n
    has   been       raised   in   the    vigilance   report,   departmental<\/p>\n
    communications and in the pleadings set up before the Tribunal<\/p>\n
    as well as this Court. There is no other ground for objecting the<\/p>\n
    appointments except this.            The ground regarding abolition of<\/p>\n
    posts was never raised before the Tribunal in the pleadings and<\/p>\n
    the same seems to have been raised orally before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    We deal with the said aspect little later.\n<\/p>\n
    10.             Now taking into consideration the said objection on<\/p>\n
    facts, at the outset, we find that marks obtained in the<\/p>\n
    matriculation examination was not the only criteria for making<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                               18\/27<\/p>\n
    the appointments. On the contrary, apart from the marks in the<\/p>\n
    matriculation examination a very important criteria was that the<\/p>\n
    candidate should have agricultural land\/independent property in<\/p>\n
    his name and should have proper source of income so also<\/p>\n
    residence at the same village, where the post office is located.\n<\/p>\n
    Secondly, the rule regarding preference to higher percentage of<\/p>\n
    marks cannot be read to mean that those having higher<\/p>\n
    percentage of marks were mandatorily required to be selected or<\/p>\n
    appointed. The use of the very word ‘preference’ does not make<\/p>\n
    it mandatory on the part of the Appointing Authority to appoint a<\/p>\n
    candidate, having higher percentage of marks in matriculation<\/p>\n
    examination and therefore, we find that there was no violation of<\/p>\n
    rule on the part of the Appointing Authority in the matter of<\/p>\n
    recruitment as alleged by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    11.             Looking   to   the   factual   data,   which       has     been<\/p>\n
    considered by the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly, the<\/p>\n
    difference of percentage of marks in most of the cases is<\/p>\n
    marginal. Since we have held that there is no violation of rule<\/p>\n
    regarding recruitment on the part of the Appointing Authority,<\/p>\n
    even if, some candidates with less percentage of marks were<\/p>\n
    selected   and      appointed,   no    illegality   much     less     material<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                              19\/27<\/p>\n
    irregularity could be said to have been committed by the<\/p>\n
    Authority. It is important to note that there is no allegation at all<\/p>\n
    about bias or favouritism by the petitioners even in the vigilance<\/p>\n
    report or in the pleadings set up before the Tribunal or this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    In the wake of these facts and the discussion made by us above,<\/p>\n
    we find that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
    Union of India and others (supra) is aptly applicable in the facts<\/p>\n
    of the case and it would be proper to quote paragraph Nos.12 to<\/p>\n
    16 from the said judgment, which read thus :\n<\/p>\n
                             “12. The     matter       relating         to
\n               appointment or recruitment of EDDA is not<\/p>\n
               governed by any statute but by departmental
\n               instructions. It is now trite that if a mistake is<\/p>\n
               committed in passing an administrative order,
\n               the same may be rectified.          Rectification of a
\n               mistake, however, may in a given situation<\/p>\n
               require     compliance    with    the   principles        of
\n               natural justice.   It is only in a case where the
\n               mistake is apparent on the face of the record, a<\/p>\n
               rectification   thereof   is     permissible     without
\n               giving any hearing to the aggrieved party.\n<\/p>\n
                     13.     The respondent was recruited not
\n               only on the basis of marks obtained by him in
\n               the matriculation examination but also upon<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:47 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                             20\/27<\/p>\n
               consideration of various other criteria necessary
\n               therefor.   He filed all necessary and requisite<\/p>\n
               documents.       The       candidature   of      all    the
\n               candidates has been considered on their own
\n               merits. Only because one Pitamber Majhi had<\/p>\n
               obtained higher marks in the matriculation
\n               examination, the same by itself should not have
\n               been a ground for cancelling the order of
\n               recruitment passed in favour of respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                     14.    When      a     Selection    Committee<\/p>\n
               recommends selection of a person, the same
\n               cannot be presumed to have been done in a<\/p>\n
               mechanical manner in absence of any allegation
\n               of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in
\n               regard to the correctness of the official act. The
\n               party who makes any allegation of bias or<\/p>\n
               favouritism is required to prove the same. In the<\/p>\n
               instant case, no such allegation was made. The
\n               selection process was not found to be vitiated.
\n               No illegality was brought to our notice.           In this<\/p>\n
               view of the matter, we are of the opinion that
\n               the said Pitamber Majhi by reason of higher
\n               marks obtained by him in the matriculation
\n               examination also cannot be said to be a better<\/p>\n
               candidate than the respondent herein.              In this
\n               view of the matter, we do not find any fault with
\n               the impugned judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     wp1580.10.odt                                                                    21\/27<\/p>\n
                        15.   The Division Bench of the High Court,
\n               in our considered view, correctly applied the law,<\/p>\n
               which has been crystallised in a number of
\n               decisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                        16.   Indisputably,         the    respondent        has<\/p>\n
               fulfilled all the essential terms and conditions for
\n               the      appointment          to    the     said    post.     The
\n               respondent alone had submitted all necessary
\n               and      required      documents           before    the     date<\/p>\n
               prescribed by the appellants.                 It may also be<\/p>\n
               pertinent to mention that at the time of selection
\n               the respondent was the only one who had the<\/p>\n
               experience of working continuously on the said
\n               post     for   a     period    of   one-and-a-half          years.
\n               Perhaps,       all      these       factors        cumulatively
\n               persuaded the authorities concerned to select<\/p>\n
               the respondent to the said post.”\n<\/p>\n
    12.             The submission made on behalf of the petitioners<\/p>\n
    about abolition of posts of the respondents-employees is liable to<\/p>\n
    be rejected for the reasons more than one. In the first place, in<\/p>\n
    the pleadings, which were filed before the Tribunal, no such plea<\/p>\n
    was at all raised in the Original Applications.                   The said plea<\/p>\n
    appears to have been set up for the first time before the Tribunal<\/p>\n
    in arguments. The Tribunal in that regard observed thus in its<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                            22\/27<\/p>\n
    impugned judgment. We quote the relevant portion from<\/p>\n
    paragraph No.18 as under :\n<\/p>\n
                           “18.    Lastly, in this connection, it is
\n            also pertinent to note that the submission regarding
\n            abolition of post has been taken by the respondents<\/p>\n
            orally and in the same breath it was submitted that
\n            restructuring of the whole cadre of GDS was
\n            underway.      The respondents have not pointed out<\/p>\n
            that     the   termination    of   the   services   of    the<\/p>\n
            applicants was due to abolition of posts held by
\n            them or because of restructuring of the cadre of
\n            GDS.      The respondents have also not given the<\/p>\n
            circumstances leading to the abolition of posts, if
\n            any. Even the so called policy decision to abolish
\n            the posts has not been placed on record. It is the<\/p>\n
            admitted factual position that the said abolition of<\/p>\n
            posts, if any, was not one of the grounds for
\n            termination of the services of the applicants in
\n            question.       As    such,   apparently    there    is    no<\/p>\n
            co-relation between the abolition of the post and
\n            termination of the services of the applicants…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13.             We have no reason to disbelieve what the Tribunal<\/p>\n
    has observed in paragraph No.18 merely because the learned<\/p>\n
    Counsel for the petitioners states that documents were filed<\/p>\n
    before the Tribunal. We, however, gave opportunity to the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                               23\/27<\/p>\n
    learned Counsel for the petitioners to file those documents<\/p>\n
    before us.      The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed<\/p>\n
    additional affidavit dated 16.8.2010 with vigilance report and<\/p>\n
    other documents. In paragraph No.9 of the additional affidavit, it<\/p>\n
    is stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
                           “9.     It is submitted, the case of
\n             Shyamrao Damdu Taiwade, Original Application<\/p>\n
             No. 2249 of 2004, which was also jointly heard by<\/p>\n
             Applications,<\/p>\n
             the Tribunal on 17\/9\/2009 along with 6 Original
\n                                 the    petitioner   herein   had     filed
\n             documents       by        seeking   permission      to     file<\/p>\n
             documents with respect to the letters issued by
\n             the Department of Posts so as to revamp Rural
\n             Postal Network as well as imposition of ban in<\/p>\n
             filling up the GDS posts. These documents were<\/p>\n
             filed in the above Original Applications so as to
\n             support the contention of the petitioner about
\n             abolition of posts as well as re-structuring of the<\/p>\n
             cadre as well as ban imposed.                  Copy of the
\n             communication dated 11th August, 2003 as issued
\n             by the Department of Post which was circulated
\n             by letter dated 12th September, 2003 from the<\/p>\n
             office of Postmaster General, Nagpur Region,
\n             Nagpur   is     herewith       annexed    as     Document
\n             No.7.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     wp1580.10.odt                                                         24\/27<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    14.             From the reading of paragraph No.9 of the additional<\/p>\n
    affidavit, it is clear that the documents were said to have been<\/p>\n
    filed in Original Application No.2249\/2004 only and there is no<\/p>\n
    statement that the petitioners had obtained any order on the<\/p>\n
    application for permission to file those documents. Ignoring all<\/p>\n
    this, we decided to go through these documents, which were<\/p>\n
    collectively filed as document No.7.           Document No.7 is a<\/p>\n
    communication dated 11.8.2003 and another dated 12.9.2003.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    These two documents filed as document No.7 nowhere show the<\/p>\n
    abolition of any post but shows that proposal to revamp rural<\/p>\n
    postal network is likely to be taken up. There is nothing more in<\/p>\n
    these documents and therefore, contention raised by the learned<\/p>\n
    Counsel for the petitioners about these documents showing<\/p>\n
    abolition of posts will have to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    15.             Upon perusal of the additional affidavit, we find that<\/p>\n
    some    documents regarding abolition of          posts have been<\/p>\n
    mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the additional affidavit and<\/p>\n
    these documents are filed before this Court for the first time as<\/p>\n
    document Nos.4, 5 and 6.         It is not claimed in this paragraph<\/p>\n
    No.8 that these documents No. 4, 5 and 6 were ever filed before<\/p>\n
    the Tribunal. We were therefore not required to consider this<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                          25\/27<\/p>\n
    fresh material before this Court for the first time but even then<\/p>\n
    due to insistence of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we<\/p>\n
    went through all these documents No. 4, 5 and 6 and we find<\/p>\n
    that   these     documents     dated   20.09.2004,   26.12.2005         and<\/p>\n
    18.4.2006 indicate abolition of 34, 10 and 12 posts of G.D.S.\n<\/p>\n
    respectively at the places shown in the annexure thereof. As a<\/p>\n
    matter of fact, after filing these documents, it was the duty of<\/p>\n
    the learned Counsel for the petitioners to corelate these<\/p>\n
    documents to the respondents-employees but no such attempt<\/p>\n
    was made and these documents were just casually filed on the<\/p>\n
    record. We, however, have gone through these documents and<\/p>\n
    compared them with the names etc. respondents-employees and<\/p>\n
    we find from these documents that except Malegaon B.O.,<\/p>\n
    G.D.S.,   M.D.      Saoner   S.O.   under   letter   dated    18.4.2006<\/p>\n
    (Document No.6) relating to Sanjay Govindraoji Chandurkar, no<\/p>\n
    other posts held by the other respondents are shown to have<\/p>\n
    been abolished. At any rate, the post of this Sanjay Govindraoji<\/p>\n
    Chandrukar shown to have been abolished is w.e.f. 30.4.2006.\n<\/p>\n
    16.             Physical verification carried out by us thus shows that<\/p>\n
    the posts held by the respondents were never abolished. Thus,<\/p>\n
    even on merits the contention regarding abolition of posts<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span>
\n     wp1580.10.odt                                                         26\/27<\/p>\n
    advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is without<\/p>\n
    any merit. At any rate, even in the case of Sajnay Govindraoji<\/p>\n
    Chandurkar, whose post is shown to have been abolished after<\/p>\n
    his termination, the Tribunal has taken care to observe that he<\/p>\n
    would be governed by restructuring and therefore, we find no<\/p>\n
    reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment made by the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal.    Since     the   respondents-employees       have         been<\/p>\n
    unjustifiably kept out of employment at least during the<\/p>\n
    pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners having obtained<\/p>\n
    stay from this Court and in the light of the above discussion, we<\/p>\n
    find this to be a fit case, where cost is required to be imposed on<\/p>\n
    the petitioners. In the result, we pass the following order.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ORDER<\/p>\n
                    (i)   Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs of<\/p>\n
    Rs.5,000\/-      (Rupees   Five   Thousand   Only)   payable      by     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners to each of the respondents within a period of eight<\/p>\n
    weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     wp1580.10.odt                                                         27\/27<\/p>\n
                    (ii)   The petitioners shall comply with the order of<\/p>\n
    the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and upon<\/p>\n
    failure to comply the said order, the petitioners will have to pay<\/p>\n
    the T.R.C.A. thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
                JUDGE                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
                    Advocate Shri R.S. Sundaram for the petitioners<\/p>\n
    prays for stay of this judgment.           As the matter concerns<\/p>\n
    employment in rural area, request is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                     JUDGE                                 JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\n    ssw\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:26:48 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 Bench: S.A. Bobde, A. B. Chaudhari wp1580.10.odt 1\/27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NOS.1580\/2010, 1575\/2010, 1576\/2010, 1577\/2010, 1578\/2010, 1582\/2010, 1583\/2010, 1584\/2010, 1586\/2010, 1587\/2010, 1588\/2910, 1589\/2010 AND 2071\/2010, 2072\/2010, 2073\/2010. ——————————————————————————————- WRIT PETITION NO.1580\/2010 PETITIONERS:- 1. Director, Postal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-25T00:28:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T00:28:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T00:28:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-25T00:28:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T00:28:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010"},"wordCount":3206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010","name":"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T00:28:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-vs-sanjay-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director vs Sanjay on 17 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}