Allowed

Shobha Balkrushna Pandkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Apr 2014WP/1058/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows two writ petitions challenging the rejection of appointment approvals for teachers (Shikshansevak). The court held that the petitioners met the requisite qualifications to teach revised syllabus subjects at the secondary level, setting aside the respondents' refusal.

What did the court decide?

Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus issued to quash refusal of approval and direct the respondent to grant approval to respondents' appointment as Shikshansevak on or before 30.05.2014.

Shobha Balkrushna Pandkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP 1058,1061/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1058 OF 2014

¶6

Shobha Balkrushna Pandkar, Age 47 years,
Occupation Shikshansevak, Resident of
Maldad Road, Behind Divekar Gas Agency,
Sangamner, A/p. & Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

V E R S U S

¶9

1 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary of School Educatioin Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶10

Respondent

¶11

2 The Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar

¶12

3 Sahyadri Bahujan Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman/Secretary

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 1061 OF 2014

¶15

Manesh s/o Manik Yadav, Age 27 years,
Occ. Assistant Teacher, R/o. Jorve, Tq.
Sangamner, R/o. Jorve, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar

¶16

Petitioner

¶17

V E R S U S

¶18

1 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary of School Educatioin Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶19

Respondent

¶20

2 The Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar

¶21

3 Sahyadri Bahujan Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman/Secretary

¶22

Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioners
Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2
Shri A.G. Ambetkar, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶23

WP 1058,1061/2014

¶24

¶25

 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶26

 DATE : 29/04/2014

¶27

JUDGMENT : [Per S.S. Shinde, J.]

¶28

1.Heard both the sides.

¶29

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, learned counsel for the parties are heard
finally.

¶30

3.The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1058 of
2014 is M.A. B.Ed. and completed M.A. [twice] in
Politics and Economics subjects. The petitioner is
appointed as Shikshansevak for the period 17.11.2011
to 16.11.2014, by appointment letter dated 15.11.2011
on certain terms and conditions.

¶31

4.In this petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order of respondent No.3, dated 6th
September, 2013, refusing approval to the appointment
of the petitioner.

¶32

5.It is the case of petitioner that he is B.A.
in Economics and the other subject was Politics. The
petitioner completed B.Ed. and the method of

¶33

WP 1058,1061/2014

¶34

examination was Marathi and Geography. At present,
the petitioner is doing B.A. in Marathi from Pune
University. The petitioner possesses teaching
experience since she was appointed as lecturer in
Virbhadra Junior College at Sakur for the academic
year 2007-2008 on Clock Hour Basis and Pay-Scale
basis, and to that effect, the Deputy Director of
Education granted approval to her services on Clock
Hour Basis. The petitioner was again appointed on
15.06.2008, 13.06.2009 and 12.06.2010 by respondent
no.3, and the Deputy Director of Education granted
approval to those appointments on 26.03.2011.

¶35

6.The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1061 of
2014 has obtained B.A. degree in Politics as well as
in Marathi subject. The method of B.A. examination of
the petitioner was Marathi and Geography. He was
selected as Shikshansevak and was appointed in
Virbhadra Vidyalaya, run by respondent no.3. The
proposal submitted to the respondent no.3 for approval
of the petitioner’s services has been turned down.
Therefore, in both the petitions, the rejection of
approval by the respondent/Government authority is
under challenge.

¶36

7.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that as per Circular dated
11.04.2012, issued by the State Board, the syllabus of

¶37

4 WP 1058,1061/2014

¶38

9th standard has been revised. The subject of Social
Science is now consisting of History, Civics,
Geography plus economics and four text books have been
prescribed. The name of Civics subject has been
changed to politics. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No.1061 of 2014 is teaching Social Science to 9th and
10th standard. The petitioner has placed on record
time-table showing that he is assigned Social Science
subject for teaching.

¶39

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1058
of 2014 is also teaching the subject of Economics and
other subjects which are included in syllabus of 9th
standard by the Circular dated 11.04.2012 issued by
the State Board. The other subjects are also included.
The sum and substance of the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners in
both the petition are well educated and possesses
requisite qualifications to teach various subjects
including Social Science, Economics, Marathi etc.
Therefore, relying upon the pleadings in the petition,
annexures thereto, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that both the petitions
deserve to be allowed.

¶40

9.The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State
invited our attention to the affidavit-in-replies

¶41

5 WP 1058,1061/2014

¶42

filed in both the writ petitions and submits that so
far Writ Petition No. 1058 of 2014 is concerned,
though the petitioner possesses M.A. B.Ed Degree, the
petitioner has not completed Bachelors Degree in those
subjects which are prescribed for teaching. It is
submitted that the petitioner has also worked as
Lecturer in Junior College at Sakur, and therefore,
the petitioner possesses qualification to teach for
Junior College and not for Secondary School.

¶43

10.So far petitioner in Writ Petition No.1961 is
concerned, learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner
does not possess requisite qualification. The learned
A.G.P. invited our attention to the Circular dated
13.10.2000 and in particular clause 6 [3] [b] of the
said Circular, and submits that the petitioner can be
exempted from having requisite qualification in
particular subject to conditions laid down in clause 6
[3][b] of the said Circular.

¶44

11.We have given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the State, and
also perused the pleadings in the petition, grounds
taken therein, annexures thereto and affidavit-in-
replies filed by the respondent no.2/State.

¶45

12.Upon careful perusal of the documents placed

¶46

6 WP 1058,1061/2014

¶47

on record, so far petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1058
of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner possesses
Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Pune.
The University of Pune has conferred Master of Arts
Degree on the petitioner. The petitioner also
possesses Degree of Bachelor of Education. Upon
perusal of the time-table prescribed for teaching, the
petitioner is assigned the teaching job in subjects
like Marathi, Environment, Social Sciences etc.

¶48

13.In Writ Petition No.1061 of 2014, the
petitioner therein also possesses Bachelors Degree in
Arts from the University of Pune and also special
certificate issued by the University of Pune to the
petitioner that he has passed Bachelor of Arts with
subjects Politics, Marathi, Geography and general
subjects. There are other certificates which are
placed on record by the petitioner, which would
unequivocally indicate that the petitioner is well
qualified and also he is assigned teaching job in
various subjects by the respondent-school.

¶49

14.In the light of discussion herein above and
in particular in view of the Circular dated 11.04.2012
issued by the State Board, the syllabus of 9th standard
has been revised and various subjects have been
included in the said syllabus and the petitioners have
been assigned job to teach those subjects. Therefore,

¶50

7 WP 1058,1061/2014

¶51

viewed from any angle, the petitioners in both the
petitions, are well qualified and actually teaching
the subjects which are prescribed in syllabus.
Therefore, the respondent/State authority was not
right to refuse the approval to the appointment of the
petitioners as Shikshansevak.

¶52

15.In view of above, the Writ Petition No.1058
of 2014 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [B] and
[C], which reads thus :-

¶53

[B]Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the
nature of Certiorari or a direction in the like nature
for quashing and setting aside the order dated
06.09.2013issuedbytherespondentno.2
[Exhibit-’F’].

¶54

[C]Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the
nature of Mandamus or a direction in the like nature
for directing the respondent no.2 to grant approval to
the petitioner on the post of Shikshansevak as per the
proposal sent by the respondent no.3 at Exhibit-’E’.

¶55

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clauses [B] and [C] above.

¶56

16.Writ Petition No.1061 of 2014 is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses [B] and [C], which reads

¶57

8 WP 1058,1061/2014

¶58

thus :-

¶59

[B]Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the
nature of Certiorari or a direction in the like nature
for quashing and setting aside the communication dated
06.09.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 at Exh. “D”,
thereby refusing approval to the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Shikshansevak.

¶60

[C]Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the
nature of Mandamus or a direction in the like nature
for directing the respondent no.2 to grant approval to
the petitioner on the post of Shikshansevak as per the
proposal sent by the respondent no.3 at Exhibit-’C’.

¶61

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶62

The respondent no.2 is directed to grant
approval to the services in case of both the
petitioners on or before 30.05.2014.

¶63

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )

¶64

SRM///14

Shobha Balkrushna Pandkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Balkrushna Pandkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Nagnath Malikarjun Aundhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kisan Mahadu Boke Vs M I D C through Regional Officer Latur

Balu Chima Kaile and Another Vs M I D C through Regional Officer Latur

Prashant Shyamsundar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waman Balaji Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rushikesh Dilip Bhor Foundations Adhayapak Vidyalaya Vs the State of Mah and Ors.