IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a reference to a larger bench is only warranted when there is a clear disagreement among judges of a Division Bench, and that earlier dismissals on grounds of laches do not constitute binding precedents on the merits of a case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SHARMILA U.DESHMUKH, J. - Reference was made to the Larger Bench for consideration of following issues:

"i] Whether the petition is maintainable.

ii] Whether the order dtd. 31/12/2005 for cancellation of admissions to postal D.Ed. Course and based on the enquiry report submitted in May 2005, despite the fact that most of the candidates had completed their postal D.Ed. Course prior to the submission of the report or prior to the order of cancellation of admission, is sustainable in law.

iii] Whether the order of termination dtd. 15/2/2011, is sustainable."

2. We have thought it fit to examine whether the Reference was warranted in view of the objection raised by Mr. Talekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Talekar submits that the Reference is made under Rule 7 of Chapter-I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 [for short "the Rules of 1960"] which is not applicable as the said Rule enables the Reference to be made where there is difference of opinion between Judges of the Division Bench and Reference is required to be made to the third Judge. Pointing out to the newly inserted Rule 9 of Chapter-I of the Rules of 1960, he would submit that under the said Rule, Reference to the larger bench would arise only when one Division Bench differs from the decision of any other Division Bench upon a point of law. He would urge that by the order of Reference, the Division Bench has not recorded any disagreement with the judgment of other Division Bench and, there being no disagreement, neither Rule-7 of Chapter-I nor Rule-9 of Chapter-I of the Rules of 1960 would apply.

3. Before dealing with the submission of Mr. Talekar, it would be necessary to advert to the facts of the case giving rise to this Reference. Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2011 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 15/12/2011 cancelling the petitioner's initial appointment as Shikshan-Sevak with effect from 24/11/2005 resulting in termination of her services as an assistant teacher in primary school run by the Municipal Corporation of Malegaon and the consequent relieving order dtd. 15/2/2011 passed by the headmistress. Prior to the filing of the present Petition, the Petitioner was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.689 of 2006 filed before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court seeking quashing of the order dtd. 31/12/2005 cancelling the admission of petitioners to the Postal D.Ed. Course. The Petition was filed by 22 petitioners, of which the petitioner herein claims to be petitioner no.18, although there appears to be some discrepancy as far as the name of the petitioner is concerned.

4. Vide order dtd. 22/4/2008 passed in group of petitions, i.e. Writ Petition Nos. 6154 of 2007, 3773 of 2007, 3772 of 2007, 3770 of 2007, 3771 of 2007, 5105 of 2007, 5108 of 2007, 5110 of 2007, 5111 of 2007, 6155 of 2007, 6156 of 2007 and 6153 of 2007, which also sought to challenge the cancellation of the admission to Postal D.Ed Course of the Petitioners therein, came to be dismissed by the learned Division Bench. (Coram: J.N.Patel and S.B. Deshmukh JJ). It was held by the learned Division Bench in paragraph 2 of the said order that the reason that the petitioners had initially filed a petition in the year 2006, which was later withdrawn in the year 2007, with liberty to file a fresh petition as a ground for condonation of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners is not a good and sufficient reason. The learned Division Bench held in paragraph 3 that even if the petitions are taken up for consideration, it may not sub-serve the purpose as no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners due to lapse of time as Postal D.Ed. Course of the academic session, in which the petitioners seek admission is concluded. The Petitions came to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek admission in Postal D.Ed. Course / D.Ed. Course, if they are otherwise eligible and entitled to in accordance with the rules which g