Petitioner sought conversion of part-time librarian post to full-time with consequential benefits. Court declined to entertain petition due to serious disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged 1999 appointment and denial by management.
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.
wp1663-13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1663 of 2013
Avdhut Atmaram Chandekar
Vs.
Education Officer ( Sec.) Zilla Parishad, Washim and another.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for petitioner. Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri A.R. Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.2.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 1ST JULY, 2014
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.1, Education Officer (Secondary) to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a full time librarian from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary.
The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a part time librarian in the year 1984 in pursuance of an advertisement. With the increase in the strength of the students, it is the case of the petitioner that the post of part time librarian was converted to the post of full time librarian and the petitioner was appointed as full time librarian by an order dated 21.6.1999. According to the petitioner. though the management has forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to the Education Officer ( Secondary) for grant of approval, the Education Officer has not granted the same. The petition
wp1663-13
2
is, therefore, filed for seeking a direction to the Education Officer (Secondary) to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner as a full time librarian.
The respondent no.2 management has filed an affidavit-in-reply. The case made out by the petitioner in regard to appointment as a full time librarian is specifically denied by the respondent no.2. It is denied that the petitioner was appointed as a full time librarian in the year 1999 and his proposal was forwarded to the Education Officer (Secondary) for grant of approval. The respondent no.2 has stated in the affidavit-in -reply that there is no workload for full time librarian and the case made out by the petitioner that the staff approval shows the work of a full time librarian is also incorrect. It is stated that the strength of the students in the school is less than one thousand and a full time librarian cannot be appointed.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, it appears that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the management in regard to the alleged appointment of the petitioner on the post of full time librarian since the year 1999. The respondent no.2 has specifically denied the existence of the vacancy in the post of full time librarian in the year 1999 or thereafter and has also disputed the appointment of the petitioner on the post of full time librarian in the year 1999. Since serious disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this writ petition and since there is a dispute in respect of the very appointment of the petitioner on the post of full time librarian, this court would not be in a position to direct the Education Officer
wp1663-13
3
(Secondary) to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of full time librarian. Prima facie we find some force in the submission of the respondent no. 2 in respect of the denial about the appointment of the petitioner on the post of full time librarian in the year 1999 and the sending of the proposal to the Education Officer, because if the proposal was sent on 18.8.1999, the petitioner would not have waited for 15 years to seek a direction for grant of approval.
Since disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this writ petition, we decline to entertain the same.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the Education Officer to grant approval for conversion of part-time librarian post to full-time given disputed facts.
Whether the petitioner was validly appointed as a full-time librarian in 1999 to support his claim for arrears.
Whether serious disputes of fact exist regarding the appointment and the existence of the vacancy.
Avdhut Atmaram Chandekar
Education Officer ( Sec.) Zilla Parishad, Washim
Zilla Parishad, Washim
VASANTI A. NAIK
V.K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
