Quashed

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012WP/5258/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Education Officer's order approving petitions as Shikshan Sevaks, directing approval as Assistant Teachers with effect from August 1, 2011, to prevent loss of seniority compared to similarly situated colleagues.

What did the court decide?

Approval of appointments granted as Assistant Teachers with effect from 1 August 2011; consequential orders to be passed within two weeks.

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 of 3 WP.5258.2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5258 OF 2012

¶4

Ms.Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar Petitioner versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶6

Respondents

¶7

AND WRIT PETITION NO.5260 OF 2012

¶8

Ashok Baliram Mhatre Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶11

Respondents

¶12

AND WRIT PETITION NO.5261 OF 2012

¶13

Suresh Bhiva Devmundhe Petitioner

¶14

versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶16

Respondents

¶17

Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar and Mr.Sagar for Petitioners. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondents State.

¶18

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶19

DATE : 12 September 2012

¶20

PC :

¶21

Rule. Learned AGP waives service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel.

¶22

2 of 3 WP.5258.2012

¶23

In this batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the three Petitioners are Assistant Teachers in a secondary school conducted by the Third Respondent at Khopoli in the District of Raigad. They were appointed initially in the unaided school conducted by the same management (a secondary school at Savaroli, Tal. Khalapur). Their appointments were approved by the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad Zilla Parishad on 25 January 2006. The approval was initially on an unaided basis. Thereafter the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5258 of 2012 who had initially been appointed on a part time basis, was appointed on a full time basis on 10 June 2006 and approval was granted by the Education Officer (Secondary) on an unaided basis on 22 September 2006. The other Petitioners were appointed on a full time basis and their services were approved on an unaided basis. The Petitioners were transferred to an aided school run by the same management.

¶24

The grievance of the Petitioners is that they have now been granted approval on 29 March 2012 as Shikshan Sevaks with the result that they would be required to put in another three years of service before they are confirmed as Assistant Teachers, leading to a loss of seniority. To the other Assistant Teachers who were appointed with the petitioners and to whom the approval was granted by the same order dated 25 January 2006 on an unaided basis, the Education Officer has granted his approval as Assistant Teachers.

¶25

In our view, there was no justification whatsoever for the Education Officer (Secondary) to grant his approval only as Shikshan

¶26

3 of 3 WP.5258.2012

¶27

Sevaks to the three Petitioners. If the Petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the aided school by transfer from the unaided school on the basis of seniority, the approval ought to have been granted to them as Assistant Teachers. This is especially so having due regard to the fact that they were similarly circumstanced with other Teachers in whose case approval was granted as Assistant Teachers.

¶28

In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the order of the Second Respondent dated 29 March 2012 and direct the Second Respondent to grant approval to the appointments of the Petitioners as Assistant Teachers with effect from 1 August 2011 (the date as mentioned in the approval order dated 29 March 2011). The Education Officer (Secondary) shall pass consequential orders within a period of two weeks from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced on his record.

¶29

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶31

(A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶32

MST

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept 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

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Dattajirao Khanwilkar Eduation Trust, through Chairman Shri. Amar Madhukar Warde Vs Education Officer (Primary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug and Ors.

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.