The petitioner sought writ relief for appointment and salary arrears. The High Court noted the respondent admitted no employment after 2001 and rejection of her approval proposal. The petition was rejected.
Direction to obtain appointment approval and payment of salary rejected; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 3268/2008
Sunita d/o Uttamrao Ghatol vs. Deputy Director (Education), Amaravati Division, Amaravti. And others.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders.
Mr. S. D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. R.Saboo, Advocate for R 3 and 4.
Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 21st October, 2008.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who claims that she was appointed by the respondent no. 4 Society on 2.7.1993 as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no. 3
School. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India she prays for direction to the respondents 3 & 4 to submit the proposal for approval of her appointment to the respondent no.2 from 1.1.2002 and further direction to the respondent no.2 to consider the said proposal favourably. She further prays for direction for payment of her salary from 2.7.1993 to 1.1.2002.
2
2. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed an affidavit in reply and it has been submitted that at the end of the academic year 2000-01, in April 2001 the petitioner was not issued with any appointment order and she was not in the employment since commencement of the academic year 2001-02 onwards. It has been further pointed out that she was appointed on purely temporary basis vide appointment order dated 1.7.1993 and at that time she did not possess the B.Ed. Qualification. It has been stated in the said affidavit in reply that the petitioner's salary till she was in employment has been paid and when the proposal for her appointment was submitted to the Education Officer, the same was rejected vide his orders dated 15.3.1996, 30.11.1996, 25.3.1997 as well as 29.10.1997. It has been stated that the petitioner's salary for the entire period was
3
borne by the Management as her appointment was not approved, except for the period from 1.6.1995 to 30.6.1996.
3. When the Management disputes and states that the petitioner has not been in the employment from April, 2001 onwards, the relief prayed for can not be granted in these obtaining circumstances and if the petitioner claims that her salary for the period till April 2001 has not been paid partly or fully, her remedy may be somewhere else.
The petition is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
patle.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner accused of absence since 2001 can be granted retrospective appointment and salary pending approval for 1993-2002.
Whether the High Court can direct approval of a temporary appointment lacking mandatory qualifications.
Whether salary can be granted when the managing authority admits payment but disputes continued service since 2001.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunita d/o Uttamrao Ghatol
Deputy Director (Education), Amaravati Division
B.H. Marlapalle
A.H. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
