Petitioner challenged appointment and regularization of Respondent No.4 as Assistant Teacher. Court held that challenge was time-barred as regularization occurred years ago. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; no appointment quashed.
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.
wp196712.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1967 OF 2012
Smt.Surekha d/o Pandit Tayde
Petitioner
Versus
Sunskrutik Mandal, Nimbhora, Tq.Raver, District Jalgaon, through its President & others Respondents
Mr.S.S.Mundhe, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin R. Bhawar, advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.
Mr.Adhav, advocate holding for Mr.R.K.Temkar, advocate for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 25th October, 2012.
PER COURT:
1 The petitioner is challenging appointment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of Shikshan Sevak, so also, his absorption in service as an Assistant teacher after completion of tenure as Shikshan Sevak.
2 Petitioner contends that she was appointed for two academic years on the post of Shikshan Sevak on clock hour basis. An advertisement was issued for the academic year 2007-2008 for making appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. Respondent No.4 tendered an application in pursuance to the advertisement and he was appointed on clock hour basis since he was not possessing requisite qualification.
wp196712.odt
{2}
It is the contention of Respondent that petitioner did not tender application in response to the advertisement issued in the year 2008 and as such, her claim was not considered. Petitioner objects to the appointment of Respondent No.4 on the ground that he does not fulfill criteria of eligibility since he does not possess requisite qualification. On the date of his appointment as Shikshan Sevak on clock hour basis, he had cleared only first part of M.A. Hindi. The qualification required for aforesaid post is M.A. plus B.Ed. in Hindi subject. It is the contention of petitioner that, overlooking her claim, Respondent No.4 came to be appointed. After completing tenure of one academic year, Respondent No.4 has been appointed as Shikshan Sevak on regular basis and has completed tenure of three years. Respondent No.4 has also been absorbed as an Assistant teacher on completion of three years service as Shikshan Sevak.
3 The challenge raised by petitioner in respect of appointment of Respondent No.4 in the year 2007-2008 cannot be gone into in the year 2012 when Respondent No.4 has been absorbed in regular service as an Assistant teacher. Petition is devoid of substance.
Writ Petition stands dismissed.
S.S.SHINDE
JUDGE
R.M.BORDE
JUDGE
adb/wp196712
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court can reconsider the appointment of a candidate three years after his absorption as a regular teacher despite the petitioner's challenge.
What are the consequences when a petition against a clock-hour appointment is filed long after the candidate has been regularized.
Smt.Surekha d/o Pandit Tayde
Sunskrutik Mandal, Nimbhora
R.M.BORDE
S.S.SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
