Allowed

Pramod S/O. Laxmanrao Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and or.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2009WP/4291/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by an individual seeking approval as an untrained teacher without the requisite D.Ed. qualification. The petitioners' counsel dropped specific reliefs, arguing that a proposal for his appointment as an untrained teacher be submitted to authorities for consideration and subsequent decision in accordance with law within a stipulated period. The court allowed the petition, d

What did the court decide?

Director the respondents to consider the petitioner's proposal for appointment as an untrained teacher and communicate the decision in accordance with law within specified time frames.

Pramod S/O. Laxmanrao Gaikwad Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4291 OF 2009

¶4

Pramod S/o.Laxmanrao Gaikwad, Age-31 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Mahatma Phule Nagar, Dhanora Road, Beed, District Beed PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

The Maharashtra State Council for Examination, Pune

¶8

The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed.

¶9

The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha Mitranagar, Palwan, Dhanora Road, Beed, District Beed.

¶10

The Head Master, Sharadchandra Vidya Mandir, Mitranagar, Palwan Dhanora Road, Beed, District : Beed RESPONDENTS

¶11

¶12

Mr.A.D.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.A.R.Nikam, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Mr.U.B.Bondar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 Mr.N.D.Sonawane, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5

¶13

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND

¶14

A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

¶15

DATE : 08/10/2009

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per, P.V.Hardas, J.)

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶18

At the outset, Shri.A.D.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner does not press for the reliefs prayed for at prayer clause B & C to the petition. It is stated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that directions be issued to the respondents for considering the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval as an untrained teacher as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of D.Ed.

¶19

Undisputedly, the petitioner does not hold the requisite qualification of D.Ed, which is essential for grant of approval as a trained teacher. Shri.N.D.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 states that the Management would submit a proposal seeking approval from respondent no.3 i.e. Education Officer,

¶20

¶21

(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed to the appointment of the petitioner as an untrained teacher. Shri.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 further states that respondents no.4 and 5 would be submitting the said proposal within the period of 2 weeks from today. Since the Management intends to submit a proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval as an untrained teacher, according to us, it would be appropriate if the respondents decide the proposal in accordance with Law.

¶22

We accordingly allow this petition and accept the statement of learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 that the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an untrained teacher would be submitted within 2 weeks from today. We accordingly direct respondent no.3 to decide the said proposal strictly in accordance with Law, within 8 weeks from the date of submission of the proposal and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The impugned order passed by this Court on 09/07/2009 that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner, to continue till the proposal of the petitioner is decided in accordance with Law by respondent no.3.

¶23

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶24

(A.V.POTDAR, J.)

¶25

(P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶26

khs/OCT 2009/wp4291-09

Pramod S/O. Laxmanrao Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and or.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod S/O. Laxmanrao Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and or.

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

Mahavir Zumbarlal Patni and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs M/S Container Corporation of India and Ors.

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Shekapur Its President Shri Sambjajirao N. Kendre and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Shaukat Hussain and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Devgiri College Boys Hostel Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Subhash Madhavrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra