{"id":29558,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-26T22:25:20","modified_gmt":"2017-03-26T16:55:20","slug":"tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, Anoop V.Mohta, R. V. More<\/div>\n
           Kambli                 1                            Wp1688.10\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n              WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                          ...\n<\/pre>\n
     Tanaji Madhukar Barbade      …Petitioner<\/p>\n
                      v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     State of Maharashtra & ors.                   …Respondents<\/p>\n
                                      …\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.G.N.Salunke for the Petitioner.
\n     Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.GP for State.\n<\/p>\n
                          …\n<\/p>\n
                                CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH,<\/p>\n
                                       ANOOP V. MOHTA &
\n                                       RANJIT MORE,JJJ<\/p>\n
                                DATED: 26th October, 2010<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT: (PER D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
     1.               Two     questions      which            have          been<\/p>\n
     referred to us for decisions are, (i) Whether<\/p>\n
     the      Government       Resolution         dated       15th      April,<\/p>\n
     1991 is valid in view of the provisions in<\/p>\n
     the MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder? &<\/p>\n
     (ii)           Whether   Schedule      `F’     to      the           Rules<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                       2                           Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     issued under the Act provides for promotion<\/p>\n
     or   it        provides          merely     a    preference             to     be<\/p>\n
     given in appointment?\n<\/p>\n
     2.                 These       questions       arise     in      following<\/p>\n
     factual background,<\/p>\n
                        The     Respondent           No.4-Shri            Shivaji<\/p>\n
     Shikshan            Prasarak          Mandal    has    established                a<\/p>\n
     junior college at Barshi. It is an admitted<\/p>\n
     position            before        us     that    the       said        junior<\/p>\n
     college            is      a     private       school       within           the<\/p>\n
     meaning            of      the     Maharashtra          Employees              of<\/p>\n
     Private             Schools           (Conditions        of        Service)<\/p>\n
     Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
     as the “Act”).                   The Petitioner was appointed<\/p>\n
     as     a       peon      in      the     Respondent          No.5-Junior<\/p>\n
     College with effect from 29th April, 1994. The<\/p>\n
     post          of    Junior       clerk     in    the     said        college<\/p>\n
     became vacant in August, 2003. By order dated<\/p>\n
     31st March, 2008 the Respondent No.4 promoted<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                     3                             Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     the Petitioner to the post of junior clerk<\/p>\n
     with           effect     from       1-4-2008.        The       Petitioner<\/p>\n
     joined the post on 1-4-2008. The Respondents<\/p>\n
     Nos.4           &     5    submitted         proposal               to        the<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.2 for approval of the promotion<\/p>\n
     of the Petitioner to the post of junior clerk<\/p>\n
     on 5-4-2008. By letter dated 6th June, 2008<\/p>\n
     the Deputy Director, Education informed the<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.5 that the post of junior clerk<\/p>\n
     is to be filled in by direct recruitment and<\/p>\n
     not       by        promotion         as    per       the        law,         and<\/p>\n
     therefore, approval to the order by which the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner has been promoted to the post of<\/p>\n
     junior          clerk     cannot       be   granted.           It      may be<\/p>\n
     pointed             out   here       that   necessity               for       the<\/p>\n
     Respondents Nos. 4 & 5 to seek approval of<\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.2 to the promotion of the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner to the post of junior clerk arises<\/p>\n
     because the Respondent No.5-college receives<\/p>\n
     grant-in-aid from the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
           Kambli                     4                           Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     3.              Feeling aggrieved by the order of the<\/p>\n
     Deputy         Director         declining       to      approve            the<\/p>\n
     promotion of the Petitioner to the post of<\/p>\n
     junior          clerk,      the      Petitioner           filed          Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No.1688 of 2010. That Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     came before the Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
     for admission on 11th March, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     4.              In support of his contention that the<\/p>\n
     reason given by the Deputy Director for not<\/p>\n
     approving the promotion of the Petitioner to<\/p>\n
     the post of junior clerk is not correct, the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner               relied       on       the           Government<\/p>\n
     Resolution dated 15th April, 1991 and a note<\/p>\n
     in Schedule “F” to the Rules framed under the<\/p>\n
     Act.          The   Petitioner         also      relied            on      two<\/p>\n
     judgments           of    the       Division      Bench          of      this<\/p>\n
     Court, one in the case of Ashok Shankarrao<\/p>\n
     Shinde          v\/s.      Prabodhan        Shikshan              Sanstha,<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                 5                             Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     Nagpur, 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 348 and other in the<\/p>\n
     case of Ramesh Shivram Khairnar v\/s. State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra & ors, 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 470. The<\/p>\n
     Division Bench, which was hearing the Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No.1688 of 2010 found itself unable<\/p>\n
     to agree with the law laid down in the two<\/p>\n
     aforesaid           judgments       and      therefore,                Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition was admitted for final hearing and<\/p>\n
     the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was requested<\/p>\n
     to   refer         the   above   questions           to      a     Larger<\/p>\n
     Bench.        Accordingly,       the      Hon’ble          the       Chief<\/p>\n
     Justice        has       constituted         this         Bench          for<\/p>\n
     consideration of above said two questions.\n<\/p>\n
     5.            We    have    heard      the     learned           Counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing for both sides.\n<\/p>\n
     6.            The learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner relied on the provisions of the<\/p>\n
     Act and the Rules and aforesaid two judgments<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                    6                           Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     of the Division Bench. The learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     also          relied    on     the     observation             made         in<\/p>\n
     paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
     single Judge of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
     Nita          Ramesh    Danane        v\/s.     Dombivali              Mitra<\/p>\n
     Mandal and ors, 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 797.\n<\/p>\n
     7.              The    learned       Addl.Government              Pleader<\/p>\n
     appearing<\/p>\n
                       for    the       Respondents         Nos.1         to     3,<\/p>\n
     however, submitted that grant of promotion to<\/p>\n
     the post of junior clerk to a person who is<\/p>\n
     working in            class-IV cadre is contrary to the<\/p>\n
     scheme of the Act and the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     8.              Now, taking up         for consideration the<\/p>\n
     first          question,      what     we     have         really           to<\/p>\n
     consider is in view of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
     Act and Rules would the Government Resolution<\/p>\n
     dated 15th April, 1991 apply in relation to a<\/p>\n
     private         school.      Perusal     of     that        Government<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                  7                            Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     Resolution shows that it has been issued by<\/p>\n
     the General Administration Department of the<\/p>\n
     Government         of    Maharashtra.         Subject           of     that<\/p>\n
     Government Resolution is promotion of Class-\n<\/p>\n
     IV employees. It appears from that Government<\/p>\n
     Resolution that the Resolution applies only<\/p>\n
     to Government service. It does not apply to a<\/p>\n
     private school. In our opinion, paragraphs 4,<\/p>\n
     5 & 6 of the aforesaid Government Resolution<\/p>\n
     leave one in no doubt that this Government<\/p>\n
     Resolution             applies       only       to         government<\/p>\n
     service.       Paragraph         4      of     the         Government<\/p>\n
     Resolution              states    that       every         department<\/p>\n
     should prepare a seniority list at District<\/p>\n
     level. Paragraph 5 says that for the purpose<\/p>\n
     of    preparing           combined      seniority             list         of<\/p>\n
     Class-IV      employees,         every       department            should<\/p>\n
     appoint       an       officer   at   the      District            level.\n<\/p>\n
     Paragraph          6     lays    down       that       so       far        as<\/p>\n
     departments in Mantralaya are concerned, for<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n         Kambli                    8                          Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     each        department    independent          seniority             list<\/p>\n
     should be prepared. It is, thus, clear from<\/p>\n
     the tenor of this Government Resolution                              that<\/p>\n
     it applies to government service only. The<\/p>\n
     fact        that    Government     Resolution              has       been<\/p>\n
     issued         by      the       General         Administration<\/p>\n
     Department,          in   opinion,     clearly             indicates<\/p>\n
     that it applies to Government service only.\n<\/p>\n
     There is one more reason why that Government<\/p>\n
     Resolution           cannot be said to apply to the<\/p>\n
     private school. Section 5(1) of the Act reads<\/p>\n
     as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   5(1) The Management shall, as soon as<\/p>\n
                   possible,   fill    in   the   manner
\n                   prescribed every permanent vacancy in
\n                   a private school by the appointment
\n                   of a person duly qualified to fill<\/p>\n
                   such vacancy:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (Provided that unless such vacancy is
\n                   to be filled in by promotion, the
\n                   Management shall, before proceeding<\/p>\n
                   to fill such vacancy, ascertain from
\n                   the Educational Inspector, Greater
\n                   Bombay, (the Education Officer, Zilla
\n                   parishad or, as the case may be, the
\n                   Director or the officer designated by
\n                   the Director in respect of schools<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:29 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                    9                            Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
                    imparting technical, vocational, art
\n                    or special education, whether there
\n                    is any suitable person available on<\/p>\n
                    the    list   of   surplus   persons
\n                    maintained by him, for absoration in<\/p>\n
                    other schools; and in the event of
\n                    such person being available, the
\n                    Management shall appoint that person
\n                    in such vacancy)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     9.             Perusal         of        the       above             quoted<\/p>\n
     provisions makes it clear that the vacancy in<\/p>\n
     private school is to be filled in the manner<\/p>\n
     prescribed. The term “prescribed                            is defined<\/p>\n
     by Section 2(17) to mean prescribed by rules.\n<\/p>\n
     It is Section 16 of the Act which contains<\/p>\n
     rule making power of the State Government. In<\/p>\n
     our opinion, Section 16 (2)(d) is relevant.\n<\/p>\n
     It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    16(2)(d) the other conditions of
\n                    service of such employees including
\n                    leave, superannuation, re-employment
\n                    and promotion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus,         the   Act        specifically           confers            rule<\/p>\n
     making        powers      on       the   State       Government              to<\/p>\n
     provide in what condition promotions are to<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                 10                              Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     be given in the service of private school. In<\/p>\n
     our opinion, this rules out the possibility<\/p>\n
     of      provision         being        made     in      relation             to<\/p>\n
     promotion in a private school by a Government<\/p>\n
     Resolution. It is a settled principal of law<\/p>\n
     that when a thing is permitted to be done in<\/p>\n
     a particular manner, it can be done only in<\/p>\n
     that manner and all other modes of doing it<\/p>\n
     are        prohibited
\n                          ig    by      necessary           implications.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,          when   the         Act    clearly        stipulates<\/p>\n
     that the provision in relation to promotion<\/p>\n
     in private school can be made by framing of<\/p>\n
     Rules,         it   cannot        be    done     by      issuance            of<\/p>\n
     Government          Resolution,              specially          when         in<\/p>\n
     exercise of its rule making power the State<\/p>\n
     Government          has      framed          rules        which          make<\/p>\n
     provision for recruitment in private school<\/p>\n
     and        also     make    provision           for       filling            in<\/p>\n
     certain posts by promotion. In our opinion,<\/p>\n
     therefore, it is clear that the Government<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                 11                          Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     Resolution dated 15th April, 1991 in view of<\/p>\n
     the       provisions       of     the   M.E.P.S.Act          and       the<\/p>\n
     Rules framed thereunder and in view of what<\/p>\n
     is     stated        in   that      Government         Resolution,<\/p>\n
     does not apply to private school.\n<\/p>\n
     10.            The        Petitioner      relies            on         the<\/p>\n
     following found in Schedule “F” of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                    Lower Grade Staff- A common seniority<\/p>\n
                    list of Laboratory Attendant, Naik,
\n                    Oilman,   Machine   Attendant,   Peon,
\n                    Watchman, Chowkidar, Sweeper, Call-
\n                    woman, Kamathi, Attendant, Laboratory<\/p>\n
                    Hamal, Liftmen and such other lower
\n                    grade   staff,   if   any,  shall   be<\/p>\n
                    maintained on the basis of the dates
\n                    of their appointment. If any of the
\n                    lower   grade   staff   improves   his
\n                    qualifications as prescribed either<\/p>\n
                    for the post of Laboratory Assistant
\n                    or Clerk, such employee should be
\n                    given preference while filling in the
\n                    said post according to his place in
\n                    seniority. (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
     11.            It    is    contended     on    behalf          of      the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner that the above quoted provisions<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                  12                           Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     provides for promotion of lower grade staff<\/p>\n
     to the post of junior clerk by promotion. The<\/p>\n
     judgment        of     the    Division       Bench          in      Ashok<\/p>\n
     Shinde’s case is first in point of time. That<\/p>\n
     judgment        also    relies       on    the      above         quoted<\/p>\n
     portion from Schedule “F”. It appears from<\/p>\n
     that judgment that a person working as a peon<\/p>\n
     in     the     private       school        had     improved             his<\/p>\n
     qualification
\n                       ig     and         had         acquired               the<\/p>\n
     qualification           necessary         for     the        post         of<\/p>\n
     junior        clerk,    but       the   management            was       not<\/p>\n
     considering him for the promotion to the post<\/p>\n
     of    junior     clerk,       therefore,         he     filed         Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition. The Petitioner in that case relying<\/p>\n
     on the aforesaid portion from Schedule “F”\n<\/p>\n
     claimed that he has right to be considered<\/p>\n
     for promotion to the post of junior clerk.\n<\/p>\n
     The Division Bench after quoting the above<\/p>\n
     quoted provision from Schedule “F” observed<\/p>\n
     thus:\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Kambli             13                      Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
                  5.       The management has right
\n              to the extent of saying that the said
\n              clause (IV) under the Schedule does<\/p>\n
              not speak of a promotion. However,
\n              the entire scheme of the Rules<\/p>\n
              including the Schedules appearing
\n              thereunder   have  to   be   given   a
\n              combined reading and are to be
\n              interpreted thereafter to further the
\n              underlying intend of this piece of<\/p>\n
              subordinate legislation. These being
\n              the Rules, then under the powers
\n              given   to  the   Executive   by   the
\n              legislative wing, while enacting the<\/p>\n
              said Act, the intent and purpose
\n              lying thereunder cannot be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
                  6.       Thus,     reading    the
\n              aforesaid two provisions together,<\/p>\n
              the position becomes clear that in
\n              case of non-teaching staff, employees
\n              of lower grade staff, so far as peons
\n              are concerned, there is a possibility<\/p>\n
              of promotion to the post of a
\n              Laboratory Assitant or clerk which<\/p>\n
              will have to be read into Schedule
\n              `B’ clause (IV) pertaining to the
\n              junior clerk as one of the source of
\n              appointment for the post.\n<\/p>\n
                  7.      To     that      extent,
\n              therefore Schedule `F’ will project
\n              itself into Schedule `B’ and on
\n              combined reading both meaning and<\/p>\n
              effect will have to be given to it.
\n              Then only the underlying idea of
\n              encouraging the lower staff to aim
\n              higher and achieve better can be
\n              implemented and that goal can be
\n              advanced.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            Kambli                    14                            Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     12.              It is clear from the observations of<\/p>\n
     the            Division     Bench         quoted          above           that<\/p>\n
     according to the Division Bench though the<\/p>\n
     above quoted portion from Schedule “F” does<\/p>\n
     not use the term “promotion” the scheme of<\/p>\n
     the        Act     and     the       Rules      shows        that         that<\/p>\n
     provision provides for promotion to the post<\/p>\n
     of junior clerk.\n<\/p>\n
                          ig          So far as judgment in the<\/p>\n
     case of Ramesh Khairnar, referred to above,<\/p>\n
     is concerned, in that case the Management of<\/p>\n
     the             private         school         had        issued              an<\/p>\n
     advertisement             inviting        the     application               for<\/p>\n
     post of junior clerk.                     The Petitioner, who<\/p>\n
     was working as              peon in that school filed a<\/p>\n
     Writ           Petition    challenging          the     advertisement<\/p>\n
     claiming          that     in    view     of    the     above         quoted<\/p>\n
     provisions from Schedule “F”, he has right to<\/p>\n
     be considered for promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
     junior          clerk     and    the     post    should          not      have<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                   15                              Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     been           advertised.         Perusal      of     that        judgment<\/p>\n
     shows that mainly relying on the observations<\/p>\n
     of the Division Bench in its judgment in the<\/p>\n
     case of Ashok Shinde referred to above, the<\/p>\n
     Division Bench held that the Petitioner in<\/p>\n
     that case had right of being considered for<\/p>\n
     the promotion to the post of junior clerk and<\/p>\n
     it     was        held      that    the    Management              was       not<\/p>\n
     justified in issuing an advertisement.\n<\/p>\n
     13.              The Division Bench in its judgment in<\/p>\n
     Ashok           Shinde’s      case,       has    referred            to      the<\/p>\n
     Scheme of the Act. Perusal of the Preamble of<\/p>\n
     the Act shows that the Act has been enacted<\/p>\n
     to regulate the recruitment and conditions of<\/p>\n
     service of employees in                         private schools in<\/p>\n
     the State. Sub-section 1 of Section 3 lays<\/p>\n
     down           that   the    provisions         of    the       Act      shall<\/p>\n
     apply to all private school in the State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra,             whether      receiving            grant-in-aid<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               16                       Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     from the State Government or not. Sub-section<\/p>\n
     1 of Section 4 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    4(1) Subject to the provisions of this
\n                    sanction, the State Government may
\n                    make rules providing for the minimum
\n                    qualifications      for     recruitment<\/p>\n
                    (including its procedure) duties,
\n                    pay, allowances, post-retirement and
\n                    other benefits and other conditions
\n                    of service of employees of private<\/p>\n
                    school    and   for    reservation   of
\n                    adequate number of posts for members<\/p>\n
                    of the backward classes:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (Provided that, neither the pay nor
\n                    the rights in respect of leave of
\n                    absence, age of retirement and post-
\n                    retirement    benefits    and   other<\/p>\n
                    monetary benefits of an employee in
\n                    the employment of an existing private<\/p>\n
                    school on the appointed date shall be
\n                    varied to the disadvantage of such
\n                    employee by any such rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.            Thus, power is conferred on the State<\/p>\n
     Government         to    frame   Rules     providing              for<\/p>\n
     minimum          qualification       for        recruitment,<\/p>\n
     duties,        pay,     allowances   and    other         aspect.\n<\/p>\n
     Proviso which appears below sub-section 1 of<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli              17                         Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     Section 5 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                             (Provided that unless such<\/p>\n
                    vacancy is to be filled in by
\n                    promotion,   the    Management   shall,
\n                    before   proceeding    to   fill   such
\n                    vacancy     ascertain      from     the
\n                    Educational      Inspector,     Greater<\/p>\n
                    Bombay, (the Education Officer, Zilla
\n                    Parishad or, as the case may be, the
\n                    Director or the officer designated by
\n                    the Director in respect of schools<\/p>\n
                    imparting technical, vocational, art
\n                    or special education, whether there<\/p>\n
                    is any suitable person available on
\n                    the    list    of    surplus    persons
\n                    maintained by him, for absoration in<\/p>\n
                    other schools; and in the event of
\n                    such person being available, the
\n                    Management shall appoint that person
\n                    in such vacancy.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     15.            Perusal of this proviso shows that<\/p>\n
     except those posts which are permitted to be<\/p>\n
     filled in by promotion, obviously by the Act<\/p>\n
     or     the     Rules    before   filling     in      the       posts<\/p>\n
     intimation has to be given about the vacancy<\/p>\n
     by every school to the Education Department,<\/p>\n
     so     that     the    names   of   candidates         from        the<\/p>\n
     surplus cell can be intimated to the school<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                     18                             Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     for absorption. This proviso is to be read<\/p>\n
     along with the provision of Rule 26, which<\/p>\n
     relates          to        retrenchment           on        account             of<\/p>\n
     abolition of post. Perusal of this Rule shows<\/p>\n
     that employees from various private schools<\/p>\n
     whose          services      are       retrenched           for       various<\/p>\n
     reasons get their names entered into surplus<\/p>\n
     cell maintained by the Education Department<\/p>\n
     and        as    and
\n                         ig     when       vacancies        occur          in      any<\/p>\n
     school.          Those        persons           whose         names           are<\/p>\n
     included          in       the        surplus      cell              get        an<\/p>\n
     opportunity of being absorbed against those<\/p>\n
     vacancies.             Thus,          if    the        Management               is<\/p>\n
     permitted             to     fill          in   the         vacancy             by<\/p>\n
     promotion,             though         there       is       no       specific<\/p>\n
     provision made in the Act or the Rules for<\/p>\n
     filling in that vacancies by promotion, then<\/p>\n
     it will frustrate a well though out scheme<\/p>\n
     which is included in the Act and the Rules<\/p>\n
     for absorption of                 surplus staff from.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            Kambli                  19                           Wp1688.10\n\n\n\n\n     16.              The    State      Government,        as      observed\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n<\/pre>\n
     above, has framed Rules. In our opinion, sub-\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 3 of Rule 9,                  is crucial. It reads as<\/p>\n
     under:\n<\/p>\n
                      9(3) Unless otherwise provided in
\n                      these rules for every appointment to<\/p>\n
                      be made in a school, for a teaching
\n                      or    a
\n                            ig  non-teaching    post,     the
\n                      candidates eligible for appointment
\n                      and desirous of applying for such
\n                      post shall make an application in<\/p>\n
                      writing giving full details regarding
\n                      name,   address,    date   of    birth,
\n                      educational      and      professional
\n                      qualifications,   experience,     etc.,<\/p>\n
                      attaching true copies of the original
\n                      certificates.     It   shall   not be<\/p>\n
                      necessary for candidates other than
\n                      those   belonging   to   the   various
\n                      sections of backward communities for
\n                      whom posts are reserved under sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      rule (7) to state their castes in
\n                      their applications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17.              Perusal of the above Rule shows that<\/p>\n
     this           Rule    give   a    right   to   every         eligible<\/p>\n
     candidate to apply for any vacancy either for<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                20                         Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     teaching or a non-teaching post in a private<\/p>\n
     school.       In     order      to    make        this          right<\/p>\n
     meaningful         and    effective,     a      corresponding<\/p>\n
     duty will have to be read in the Management<\/p>\n
     to give wide publicity to the fact that there<\/p>\n
     is a vacancy in that school, so that every<\/p>\n
     candidate who is eligible to apply can come<\/p>\n
     to know of the existence of the vacancy and<\/p>\n
     apply for the post. Without the Management<\/p>\n
     making the existence of vacancy known, the<\/p>\n
     right given by sub-Rule 3 of Rule 9 to every<\/p>\n
     eligible       candidate         to    apply            will          be<\/p>\n
     meaningless.         It is further to be seen that<\/p>\n
     many private schools also receive grant-in-\n<\/p>\n
     aid from the State Government and therefore<\/p>\n
     salaries      of    the    teaching     and       non-teaching<\/p>\n
     staff in the Schools are paid from the public<\/p>\n
     funds,        and        therefore     considering                  the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
     as     the    salary      of    the   teaching          and       non-\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
           Kambli              21                          Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     teaching staff is to be paid from the public<\/p>\n
     funds, there would be an obligation on the<\/p>\n
     Management to advertise the vacancy. So far<\/p>\n
     as     the    vacancies       which   are     reserved             for<\/p>\n
     backward         class   are    concerned,        there         is a<\/p>\n
     specific provision made in sub-Rule 8 of Rule<\/p>\n
     9. Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 9 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   Sub-Rule(8) of Rule 9- For the
\n                   purpose of filling up the vacancies
\n                   reserved   under    sub-rule    (7)   the<\/p>\n
                   Management    shall     advertise     the
\n                   vacancies in at least one newspaper
\n                   having wide circulation in the region
\n                   and also notify the vacancies to the<\/p>\n
                   Employment Exchange of the District
\n                   and to the District Social Welfare<\/p>\n
                   Officer (and to the associations or
\n                   organisations of persons belonging to
\n                   Backward Classes, by whatever names
\n                   such associations or organisations<\/p>\n
                   are called, and which are recognised
\n                   by Government for the purposes of
\n                   this sub-rule) requisitioning the
\n                   names of qualified personnel, if any,
\n                   registered with them. If it is not<\/p>\n
                   possible to fill in the reserved post
\n                   from amongst candidates, if any, who
\n                   have applied in response to the
\n                   advertisement or whose names are
\n                   recommended    by     the     Employment
\n                   Exchange   or   the    District    Social<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n           Kambli                    22                             Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
                        Welfare     Officer    (     or    such
\n                        associations    or  organisations    as
\n                        aforesaid) or if no such names are<\/p>\n
                        recommended     by   the     Employment
\n                        Exchange   or   the   District   Social<\/p>\n
                        Welfare Officer (or such associations
\n                        or organisation as aforesaid) within
\n                        a period of one month the Management
\n                        may proceed to fill up the reserved
\n                        post    in    accordance    with    the<\/p>\n
                        provisions of sub-rule (9).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     So far as reserved vacancies are concerned,<\/p>\n
     thus, the Management is not only obliged to<\/p>\n
     issue              advertisement         in        at      least           one<\/p>\n
     newspaper, but has also to notify vacancies<\/p>\n
     to       various           agencies.          In        our      opinion,<\/p>\n
     therefore, permitting the Management to fill<\/p>\n
     in    the          post    without      advertisement,               though<\/p>\n
     there is a clear provision made in the Act or<\/p>\n
     the Rules,                would be contrary to the scheme<\/p>\n
     of the Act and the Rules. In the provision in<\/p>\n
     Schedule            “F”,    which      we   have        quoted       above,<\/p>\n
     what          is    provided      is   preference.            Preference<\/p>\n
     does            not        mean        exclusive              right          of<\/p>\n
     consideration.               It        means        right          to        be<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n         Kambli               23                          Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
     preferred,      other        thing   being       equal.           The<\/p>\n
     observations made by the Supreme Court in its<\/p>\n
     judgment in the case of Sher Singh v\/s. Union<\/p>\n
     of India and ors, AIR 1984 SC 200 in relation<\/p>\n
     to the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor<\/p>\n
     Vehicles Act, in our opinion, are relevant.\n<\/p>\n
     They read as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “This would apply mututis mutandis to
\n                 the present situation. But let it be
\n                 made clear that while considering the<\/p>\n
                 application for stage carriage permit
\n                 under S.47, the private operator has
\n                 an equal chance to get a permit even
\n                 on inter-State route if it shows that<\/p>\n
                 the Undertaking is either unable to
\n                 provide   efficient   and   economical<\/p>\n
                 service or that the private operator
\n                 is better equipped to render the
\n                 same. Preference in this context
\n                 would    mean   that   other    things<\/p>\n
                 generally     appearing      to     be
\n                 qualitatively    and    quantitatively
\n                 equal though not with mathematical
\n                 accuracy, statutory provision will
\n                 tilt the balance in favour of the<\/p>\n
                 Undertaking.    Viewed    from    this
\n                 perspective the provision contained
\n                 in Section 47(1-H) would not deny
\n                 equality before law and hence would
\n                 not    offend    Art.14.”    (emphasis
\n                 supplied)<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli             24                        Wp1688.10<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     18.            So far as the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
     single Judge in the case of Nita Danane is<\/p>\n
     concerned, in that case this issue was not<\/p>\n
     being          considered.    Paragraph      13       of       that<\/p>\n
     judgment is relevant. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    13.      The   contention     of    the
\n                    learned Counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
                    that the appointment itself was not
\n                    valid as it was not in accordance
\n                    with Rule 9, has not been pleaded in<\/p>\n
                    the written statement. There is no
\n                    material at all to indicate that the
\n                    appointment   was   not   valid.    The
\n                    learned counsel sought to justify his<\/p>\n
                    submission by pointing out that the
\n                    appointment   order   refers   to   the<\/p>\n
                    petitioner’s     applications     dated
\n                    13-9-1993 and 18-9-1993. He then
\n                    points out that, in para 3 of the
\n                    petition, the petitioner has pleaded<\/p>\n
                    that she applied for the post when
\n                    she learnt that the respondents were
\n                    to employ a qualified Librarian. In
\n                    my view, if it is the case of the
\n                    respondents   that   the   appointment<\/p>\n
                    itself was invalid, then it was for
\n                    the respondents to plead so in their
\n                    written statement. There is not a
\n                    whisper about this in the written
\n                    statement. Therefore, in my opinion,
\n                    this   submission   of   the    learned<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli             25                         Wp1688.10<\/p>\n
                    counsel for the respondents is an
\n                    after-thought and cannot be accepted.
\n                    Had there in fact been an invalid<\/p>\n
                    appointment, the contention would
\n                    certainly have been raised by the<\/p>\n
                    respondents     in     their     written
\n                    statements. Apart from this, Rule
\n                    9(8) provides that a reserved post
\n                    must be advertised. However, there is
\n                    no such requirement for advertisement<\/p>\n
                    of a post in the open category, such
\n                    as the post of a Librarian. Rule 9(3)
\n                    only   contemplates    an    application
\n                    being made by the candidate with the<\/p>\n
                    requisite   details   in    respect   of
\n                    educational
\n                       ig             and      professional
\n                    qualifications, experience, etc. The
\n                    Petitioner had applied for the post
\n                    of Librarian, which is not a reserved<\/p>\n
                    post since it is an isolated post, in
\n                    the manner prescribed under Rule
\n                    9(3). Therefore, the contention of
\n                    the   learned     advocate     for   the<\/p>\n
                    respondents is untenable.\n<\/p>\n
     19.            Perusal of the above quoted paragraph<\/p>\n
     shows that the learned single Judge has not<\/p>\n
     considered        the   scheme   of    the        Act       before<\/p>\n
     making these observations. These are merely<\/p>\n
     passing observations and the issue has not<\/p>\n
     been discussed and decided.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            Kambli               26                           Wp1688.10\n\n     20.            In   our      opinion,       therefore,                the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     questions which have been referred to have to<\/p>\n
     be answered thus,<\/p>\n
       1.The         Government        Resolution          dated           15th<\/p>\n
             April, 1991 cannot be made applicable to<\/p>\n
             the    teaching     and      non-teaching          staff        in<\/p>\n
             recognised        private      schools         which          are<\/p>\n
             governed      by     the       provisions            of       the<\/p>\n
             M.E.P.S.Act & Rules framed thereunder;\n<\/p>\n
       2. Schedule “F” to the M.E.P.S.Rules does<\/p>\n
             not provide for promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
             junior      clerk.      It     merely        provides             a<\/p>\n
             preference to be given to the lower grade<\/p>\n
             staffs in making appointment to the posts<\/p>\n
             of junior clerk and laboratory assistant.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          ( D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)\n\n\n                                          ( RANJIT MORE,J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>\n      Kambli    27                 Wp1688.10\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                    \n                   \n                   \n              \n             \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:34:30 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010 Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, Anoop V.Mohta, R. V. More Kambli 1 Wp1688.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2010 … Tanaji Madhukar Barbade …Petitioner v\/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. […]<\/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-29558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 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\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-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=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-26T16:55:20+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-26T16:55:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3953,\"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\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-26T16:55:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 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":"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 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\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-26T16:55:20+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-26T16:55:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":3953,"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\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010","name":"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-26T16:55:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-madhukar-barbade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tanaji Madhukar Barbade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 October, 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\/29558","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=29558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29558\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}