Allowed

Ramesh Pundalik Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Nov 2008WP/1103/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's admission to the D.Ed. Correspondence Course. It directed admission for the 2009-10 session under the 27.2.2003 Government Resolution. The petitioner was also granted reinstatement as a Scheduled Tribe member under the 29.1.2008 Government Resolution, provided he produces a validity certificate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to D.Ed. Correspondence Course for 2009-10 session and reinstated to post as Untrained Shikshan Sevak upon production of caste validity certificate.

Ramesh Pundalik Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1103 OF 2008

¶4

Ramesh Pundalik Jadhav

¶5

Petitioner.

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

& Ors. ....

¶9

Respondents.

¶10

Mr. N.V. Bandivadekar for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. R.P. Behere, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

¶12

Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Adv. for Respondent No. 2..

¶13

CORAM : J.N. PATEL, &

¶14

S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2008.

P.C.

. Heard.

This petition can be disposed of at the stage of

¶20

admission itself.

¶21

The petitioner is required to approach this Court seeking a writ in the nature of direction and order to quash and set aside the order dated 24.08.2005 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner's application for admission to D.Ed. Correspondence Course came to be rejected and the respondent no. 3 be directed to admit the petitioner to D. Ed. (Correspondence Course) and to reinstate the petitioner in the said post with consequential benefits.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected in the interview held for the post of Shikshan Sevak and Respondent No. 4 appointed the petitioner as Untrained Shikshan Sevak from 9.6.2003 onwards. The Institute is run by Respondent No. 5 Society. The petitioner worked in the

¶23

¶24

entire academic year 2003-04. Thereafter on 24.2.2005 Respondent No. 2 School issued an order and granted approval to petitioner as Untrained Shikshan Sevak with effect from 3.6.2004 on monthly honorarium of Rs. 1500/with a conditions that the petitioner should pass D. Ed. Correspondence course within three years.

¶25

The petitioner applied to respondent no. 3 through the school board and sought admission to D.Ed. Course by correspondence since the petitioner was an inservice candidate. The said application was recommended by the school and it was forwarded to respondent No. 2 school board which in turn forwarded the same to respondent no. 3 with necessary recommendation. On 24.8.2005, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner by post that the application made for admission to D.Ed. Correspondence course is scrutinized but the petitioner is found ineligible since his appointment is subsequent to 5.11.1997. Thereafter the petitioner made repeated representations but the same were not considered as a result of which on 28.3.2007, the petitioner was informed by

¶26

¶27

Respondent No. 5 that as the petitioner has not completed the D.Ed. Course within the time granted to him, his services would be discontinued on 30.4.2007 and that is how the petitioner's services came to be terminated. It appears that the petitioner then tried to approach various authorities but did not get any relief and, therefore, he has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶28

The facts are not disputed by the respondents. But, it appears that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner on a wrong premise that the petitioner had been declared ineligible for admission to D. Ed. Correspondence Course 2004-05 as the said facility is only available for the Untrained Teachers who are appointed in recognised primary school before 5.11.1997 and where the Education Officer (Primary Zilla Parishad) or Regional Deputy Director of Education has given approval to the appointment of untrained teachers till June 1997 for minimum one year are eligible for admission to the postal D.Ed. Course (2004-05).

¶29

The respondents admitted that the petitioner

¶30

¶31

was appointed as an untrained Shishan Sevak in Vidyamandir Prathmik Shala, Savarkar Nagar, Thane and has worked from 9.7.2003 to 30.4.2007. It is their case that the appointment was in contravention of the Government Resolution.

¶32

One fails to understand the stand taken by the respondent in disqualifying the petitioner by applying to the case of the petitioner the G.R., dated 5.2.1999 which does not apply to the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the G.R., dated 27.2.2003 as admittedly he has been appointed as an untrained Shikshan Sevak in which there has been no irregularity. The cases of untrained Shikshan Sevaks are covered by G.R., dated 27.2.2003 which clearly applies to the case of the petitioner and it was obligatory for the respondents to have enabled the petitioner to undergo the course of D.Ed. (Correspondence Course) in terms of the appointment. We , therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.8.2005 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his D.Ed. Correspondence Course if he is otherwise eligible in

¶33

¶34

accordance with the G.R., by granting him admission to the said D.Ed., Correspondence course from the next academic session which is to commence for 2009-10.

¶35

In so far as the relief sought for by the petitioner of reinstatement is concerned, in normal course the petitioner ought to have approached the Grievance Committee in the matter constituted for the said purpose. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to G.R., dated 29.1.2008 which comes to the rescue of the petitioner as the petitioner belongs to caste Hindu Malhar Koli which is recognised as scheduled tribe. Our attention is specifically drawn to paragraph 2 of the G.R., which specifically provides for reinstatement of untrained Shikshan Sevaks even if they have not completed their D.Ed., within the stipulated period and that their services should be protected till they are able to complete their D.Ed. (Correspondence Course). Therefore, we are inclined to grant relief of reinstatement to the petitioner on production of validity certificate in respect of his caste claim that he belongs to caste Malhar Koli which is recognised as

¶36

¶37

scheduled tribe.

¶38

The respondents will forthwith reinstate the petitioner on the post he was appointed after verifying his 'caste certificate' and Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny committee. The petitioner's reinstatement to be considered as continuation in service but he shall not be entitled to salary for the period he was not in service.

¶39

The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶40

(J.N. PATEL, J.)

¶41

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

¶42

Ramesh Pundalik Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Pundalik Jadhav 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

Dadabhau Posha Pote Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Navsahyadri Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tps Infrastructure Limited Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Siddharam Irannappa Tugaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pratap Shivajirao Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.