Disposed

Shobha Adinath Phuke v. Natepute Education Society and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2011WP/900/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as a full-time Librarian within three months, noting that the petitioner remained a part-time librarian after termination challenges were resolved. The writ petition and connected applications were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed to consider petitioner's case for full-time Librarian appointment within three months.

Shobha Adinath Phuke Vs Natepute Education… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

 WP900.11

¶3

Bsb

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 900 OF 2011 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1269 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1270 OF 2011

¶6

Smt.Shobha Adinath Fuke

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

v/s

¶9

Natepute Education Society & ors.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr.Subhash Langote with Mr.V.A.Madane for the petitioner. Mr.Haribhau Deshinge for Resp. Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶13

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶14

DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2011

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Heard Mr.Langote, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is employed as a part-time Librarian with respondent No.2 School. By relying upon the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2006 and the subsequent circular dated 23.3.2007 issued by the Directorate of Education, the petitioner prays for directions to appoint her as a full time

¶17

¶18

 WP900.11

¶19

Librarian with respondent No.2

¶20

The Deputy Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, in his affidavit in reply has stated that on 30.1.2009 the petitioner was discontinued by respondent No. 2 as a part-time Librarian and she had challenged the said order in Appeal No.14 of 2009. The termination had taken effect on 31.1.2009 and the appeal was dismissed on 30.11.2009 and thus the termination was confirmed. We have noted in the record that on 9.2.2009 the School Tribunal by its reasoned order, had stayed the order of termination dated 30.1.2009 and on 13.2.2010 respondent No.1 management passed a resolution and withdrew the order of termination. On 25.3.2010 a purshis came to be filed in Appeal No.14 of 2009 signed by the petitioner as well as the management thereby stating that the petitioner was reinstated as a part-time Librarian and her salary was paid from the day of her termination. Hence the appeal came to be dismissed on the basis of the purshis filed on 25.3.2010. In Writ Petition No.1000 of 2011 the order passed by the Tribunal was under challenge and this Court (Single Bench) observed that once the purshis was filed by the parties stating that the order of termination was withdrawn and the appellant was reinstated nothing further survive in the

¶21

¶22

appeal and it was disposed off in terms of the purshis rather than saying that the appeal is dismissed. The fact remains that the petitioner is continuing to be a part-time Librarian as of now.

¶23

An affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 states that the Government Resolution and the circular relied upon by the petitioner should be considered in her favour if there is a vacancy of full time Librarian. It has been further pointed out that one post of full time Librarian has already been filled in and the second one is required to be filled in from the reserved category and, therefore, there is no third post available for regularization of the petitioner’s service.

¶24

We direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s case as per Rules or as per the guidelines that may be prevailing for appointment as a full time Librarian and this decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶25

The petition is disposed off in the above terms.

¶26

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition No.900 of 2011, Civil application No.1269 of 2011 for restoration of the petition and Civil Application No.1270 of 2011 for setting aside the dismissal of the petition against respondent Nos.1

¶27

¶28

 WP900.11

¶29

and 2 in view of order dated 9.3.2011, are allowed and disposed off.

¶30

(SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

¶31

¶32

 WP900.11

Shobha Adinath Phuke v. Natepute Education Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Adinath Phuke v. Natepute Education Society 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

Pingale Shivaji Baburao Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Dept of Higher and Technical Education and or

Shrinath Omkaran Umbarje and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Sunita Dasu Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Venkatesh Kisan Gaiwad Vs Janta Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Shobha Rao Vs Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science and Ors.

Bajarang Ganpat Koravale Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept of Labour and Welfare and Ors.