Allowed

Surendra Vitthal Pardeshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 May 2010WP/1554/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an order granting part-time appointment approval. The court held the appointment violated rules and directed the Education Officer to decide the proposal afresh within two weeks subject to pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the impugned communication is quashed; the Education Officer is directed to decide the proposal afresh within two weeks.

Surendra Vitthal Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1554 OF 2010

¶7

Surendra Vitthal Pardeshi,
Age 36 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Kusumba, Tq. Dhule,
District Dhule.

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

 Versus

¶10

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

¶11

2. The Education Officer
(Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Dhule, District Dhule.

¶12

3. The Social and Cultural
Association Kusumba, Tq.
Dhule, Dist. Dhule, through
its President/Secretary.

¶13

... Respondents.

¶14

Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the
State.

¶15

Mr.D.S.Bagul, advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Mr.N.D.Sonawane, advocate for the Respondent No.
3.

¶16

¶17

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND
 : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ.

¶18

 Date : 03.05.2010.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

2.By this petition, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays
for quashing and setting aside the impugned
communication issued by the Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Dhule, dated 3l.8.2009, granting
approval to the appointment of the petitioner as
a part time Head Master and also directing the
petitioner to engage classes.

¶22

3.It appears that one Mr.Choudhary was

¶23

the Head Master of the School and on account of
his termination on 15.4.2009, a vacancy was
created. Two other teachers who were senior to
the petitioner, namely, one Mr.Choudhary and one

¶24

¶25

Mr.Shaikhexpressedinwritingtheir

¶26

disinclination to be appointed as a Head Master.
Consequent to that the Management passed a
Resolution appointing the petitioner as the Head
Master and accordingly submitted the proposal for
approval to the Education Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Dhule. The Education Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Dhule by the impugned communication
granted only part time approval to the
appointment of the petitioner.

¶27

4.Mr.Bagul,learnedcounselfor

¶28

Respondent Education Officer i.e. Respondent No.2
has at the outset very fairly stated that the
appointment of the petitioner as a part time Head
Master could not have been issued under the Rules
as the aforesaid order is contrary to the
provisions of the Act and the Rules. In that
light of the matter, therefore, we quash and set
aside the impugned order and direct the Education
Officer to decide the proposal afresh. It also
appears that an appeal came to be filed by
Mr.Choudhary challenging his termination and the
said appeal is said to be pending. In the light

¶29

¶30

of the pendency of the appeal, it would be
appropriate for the Education Officer to have
granted approval to the appointment of the
petitioner subject to the decision of the appeal.

¶31

5.In that light of the matter, we allow
this petition and quash and set aside the
impugned communication dated 31.8.2009 and direct
the Education Officer to decide the said proposal
afresh by issuing necessary orders granting
approval to the appointment of the petitioner as
a Head Master subject to the decision of the
appeal. This be done within two (2) weeks from
today. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2
undertakes to communicate this order to
Respondent No.2.

¶32

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.)

¶33

asp/office/wp155410

¶34

Surendra Vitthal Pardeshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Vitthal Pardeshi 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

Achut Narayanrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary

Umesh Machindranath Ghaywat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shripati Rambhau Bhavar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dodhu Jajabrao Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Tridhari Briquetting Plant through Its Proprietor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sneha Chandrakant Padalwar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.