Disposed

Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Shikshan Mandal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2006WP/3997/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction for the absorption of a teacher as a surplus employee. The Court directed the respondent Zilla Parishad to hear the parties and pass an order on absorption within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Respondent No.2 to hear the petitioners and pass an order regarding the absorption of the petitioner no.3 within two months.

Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Shikshan Mandal and Ors… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.3997 OF 2006

¶3

 Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Shikshan Mandal
 & Ors. ...Petitioners.
 V/s.

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶5

 Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners.
 Shri R.D.Rane, G.P. for the Respondent No.1.
 Shri S.D.Thorat for Respondent No.2.

¶6

 Shri Yogesh M. Nakhwa for Respondent No.3.

¶7

 CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE &
 J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
 DATE : 5th December, 2006.

¶8

 P.C.:

¶9

 1. Heard Mr.Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel
 appearing for the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 is the
 society and petitioner no.2 is the primary school and
 the petitioner no.3 is the teacher for whose benefit,
 this petition has been moved.

¶10

2. He claims to be appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in June, 1995. Though he had the qualifications
of B.A.,B.Ed., a full bench of this Court held that
B.Ed. is not the required qualification for primary
school teacher and such teacher must possess D.Ed.
qualification and, therefore, the petitioner no.3 joined
the D.Ed. course and completed it in December, 2003.
Obviously, his seniority will be counted only after he

¶11

 : 2 :

¶12

acquired D.Ed. qualification and the petitioners’ claim
that the petitioner no.3 has been in continuous service
under the petitioner no.2-school but as a surplus
teacher.

¶13

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.3 was
absorbed in the academic year in 1999 as a surplus
teacher under the petitioner no.2-school and he has been
continued during the last about 7 years.

¶14

4. Limited prayer in this petition is for
directions for the absorption of the petitioner no.3
either under the petitioner no.2-school or any other
school. Mr.Thorat, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no.2, i.e., Zilla Parishad
submitted that this petition itself could be treated as
representation by the petitioner no.3 and the petitioner
nos.2 and 3 will be heard and appropriate order will be
passed regarding the absorption of petitioner no.3
within a period of six weeks by the respondent no.2.

¶15

5. We note down the said statement and direct the
respondent no.2 to hear the petitioner nos.2 and 3 and
pass an appropriate order regarding the absorption of
petitioner no.3 within a period of two months from
today.

¶16

 : 3 :

¶17

6. The petition stands disposed off in terms of
the above directions.

¶18

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Shikshan Mandal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Shikshan Mandal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandkishore Chandrakant Rahatekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

United Mazdoor Union Vs Aluminite Private Ltd.and Ors.

Yeravda Stud and Agricultural Farm Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kisan Ganpatrao Nimbalkar Vs Deepak Wadhwa,Parter , M/S. V.K. Associates and Ors.

Dhiraj Suryakant Jadhav Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Union of India and Anr. Vs Manish Kumar Shankarbhai Turi Alia M.Kumar and Anr.