Disposed

Ujjwala Dattu Kothule v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2008WP/2388/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former Shikshan Sevak, sought absorption as an Assistant Teacher based on previous High Court orders covering similarly placed teachers. The Court directed the State to reconsider her case. Writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent State directed to reconsider petitioner's representation/case afresh and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks.

Ujjwala Dattu Kothule Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

mgj

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 Writ Petition No. 2388 of 2008

¶5

 Mrs.Ujjwala Dattu Kothule ..Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

 State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶8

 Shri S.K.Shinde i/b Shri Sagar Kasar for
 petitioner

¶9

 Shri C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent no.1
 Smt.Manisha Shekhar i/b J.Shekhar and Co. for
 respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

CORAM:J.N.PATEL &
S.J.KATHAWALLAJJ.
 5th December, 2008
P.C.

¶11

 1. It is the petitioner’s case that he is a

¶12

 B.Sc.D.Ed and eligible for being appointed to the
 permanent sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher.

¶13

 The petitioner has put in continuous service from
 1999 till 30th April, 2001 as Shikshan Sevak. When

¶14

 the petitioner learnt that her services were
 discontinued from 1st April, 2001 along with
 similarly situated teachers between 2001 and 2007
 the other similarly situated teachers who were
 discontinued in the year 2001 had filed various

¶15

 writ petitions and this Court had passed various
 orders inter alia directing appointments/absorption
 of those petitioners as Shikshan Sevaks who were

¶16

-2-

¶17

 similarly placed as the petitioner in Nashik
 Municipal Corporation’s school. Three such orders
 dated 24th August, 2004, 29th April, 2005 and 8th
 February, 2006 are annexed as Exhibits G, H and I
 to the petition respectively.

¶18

 2. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition
 No.383 of 2007. However, the petitioner was
 allowed to withdraw the said petition with liberty
 to make a representation to the authorities and
 approach this Court if occasion so arises. By
 letter dated 17th September, 2007 the
 Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation
 School Board, Nashik informed the Desk Officer,
 School Education Department, Mantralaya that the
 petitioner was working during the period 1999 to
 2001. It is further mentioned in the said letter
 that two posts are vacant on the establishment
 Municipal Corporation School Board but the
 petitioner has not been absorbed as she was not the
 petitioner in Writ Petition No.9412 of 2004, 9452
 of 2004, 10312 of 2004 and 4833 of 2005. The

¶19

 petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file the
 present writ petition.

¶20

-3-

¶21

 3. From the orders placed before us, more
 particularly Exh.H passed by this Court in Writ
 Petition Nos. 9412, 9452 and 10312 of 2004 on 29th
 April, 2005, it is clear that the said orders would
 apply to all the Shikshan Sevaks who are appointed
 on honorarium basis in the year 1999 and were in
 service till 2001 if they possess the requisite
 qualifications required for the post of primary
 teacher i.e. D.Ed and their appointments were to
 be made on getting sanction to the admissible post
 as of date.

¶22

 4. In view thereof, the said order would also
 apply to the petitioner and the respondents ought
 to have considered the representation of the
 petitioner favourably. Finding in the letter dated
 17th September, 2007 that the petitioner cannot be
 absorbed because she was not the petitioner in the
 writ petition is incorrect and does not disentitle
 the petitioner from being considered in terms of
 the aforesaid orders passed by this Court. Learned
 A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.1 has stated
 before us that there are some vacancies sanctioned
 to the admissible post. In view thereof, the
 respondent State is directed to consider the

¶23

-4-

¶24

 representation/case of the petitioner afresh and

¶25

 pass appropriate orders in the matter within a
 period of 12 weeks from today. Writ Petition is
 disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.)

Ujjwala Dattu Kothule v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjwala Dattu Kothule 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagirathi Maruti Nemane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Narayan Yashwant Prabalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hakim Ahmad Sayyad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikant Shyamrao Kumbhar Vs Sanmati Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Ahuja Bulk Carriers Vs Jankalayan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.