Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 865 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Narote Amol Sadashivrao

2014-04-02

ANOOP V.MOHTA, M.S.SONAK

body2014
Oral Judgment Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard finally by consent of the parties, in view of the urgency. 2. Civil Application No. 994 of 2014 for recalling and modification of Judgment/orders dated 20 March 2014 and 24 March 2014 in Writ Petition No. 5290 of 2013 along with other connected matters, is taken out by the Applicants -(i) State of Maharashtra, (ii) The Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, (iii) Director of Medical Education and Research, (iv) The Director of Health Services and (v) The Secretary, Public Health Department, (for short, “the State”), as all are concerned with the admission process of Post Graduate Course in Medicine for the year 2014-2015. 3. After hearing all the parties, we have expressed our respective opinion on the issue and basically Government Circular dated 2 July 2013 and all action based upon it, to the extent of deleting totally in-service reservation for the Post-Graduate Degree Course. 4. As there was difference of opinion, which we have expressed separately, by order dated 24 March 2014 we have directed the office to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for further orders. 5. However, pending the reference, the Applicants referring to the Judgment/orders in question have taken conscious decision to cancel Government Resolution dated 2 July 2013 and to follow and adopt the policy in respect of admission to the Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses, as was followed during the academic year 2013-2014. The Applicants therefore, in view of above development, filed the present Civil Application on 29 March 2014. The common Civil Application is accordingly listed today along with all the Writ Petitions for hearing. 6. After considering the subsequent development and as the conscious decision taken by the Applicants and as the issue is pertaining to the admission of which the Schedule/ programme is already announced and re-fixed even by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court and to avoid further delay, we are inclined to dispose of the present Civil Application by modifying the Judgment/orders. There is no bar that the order of reference cannot be revoked by the same bench, specially in such peculiar circumstances. 7. There is no bar that the order of reference cannot be revoked by the same bench, specially in such peculiar circumstances. 7. The objections, including the technical objections, even if any, with regard to the maintainability of the present Civil Application and/or other challenges raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5290 of 2013 and the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1933 of 2014, as we have already taken above decision are unacceptable and accordingly rejected for the above reasons. We see there is no reason now to delay the admission process further. The subsequent development and the conscious decision taken by the Applicants, which is reflected in letter dated 28 March 2014, in our view, needs to be respected by all. The Applicants, being the policy decision maker, are free to take steps based upon the decisions so taken in the interest of all. 8. In view of this, without observing anything further, we are inclined to modify the orders only to the following extent. ORDER a) The order of reference is recalled. b) No question to decide the point of reference. c) The Applicants are free to take decision with reference to admission in question for the academic year 2014-2015. d) The interim order, based upon the statement so made by the learned Government Pleader, stands vacated. e) All the Petitions are disposed of accordingly and so also all the Civil Applications. f) There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5290 of 2013 and the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1933 of 2014 submitted to stay the effect and operation of the order, which we have passed today. Considering the above reasons, including the reasons that the extended Schedule required to be completed and as it is question of process of admission, apart from the reasons already given in the main Judgment, we see no case is made out for any further stay. 10. The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this judgment/order.