Disposed

Ashok Udhav Kothawale v. the State of Maharshtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Mar 2014WP/6515/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal of approval for his appointment as Shikshan Sevak. Court held petitioner had requisite qualifications. Since petitioner's services were terminated during pendency, court directed him to approach School Tribunal regarding termination instead of deciding the qualification dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach School Tribunal regarding termination of services.

Ashok Udhav Kothawale Vs the State of Maharshtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

 WP 6515/13 with CA 11788/13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.6515/2013

¶6

WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11788/2013

¶8

Ashok Udhav Kothawale.

¶9

...Petitioner..

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶12

...Respondents...

¶13

 .....

¶14

Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner.

¶15

Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri S.A. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent no.4.
Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant - Namdeo Satish
More in CA 11788/2013.

¶16

 .....

¶17

CORAM: R.M. BORDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶18

DATE: 18.03.2014

¶19

ORDER :

¶20

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

2]The petitioner is challenging the order passed by

¶22

the Education Officer on 23.7.2013 refusing to accord

¶23

approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a
Shikshan Sevak. It is not disputed that the petitioner

¶24

was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak to teach Marathi

¶25

subject on 30.12.2013. The petitioner has completed his

¶26

 WP 6515/13 with CA 11788/13

¶27

- 2 -

¶28

graduation (B.Sc.) in 2003 and has acquired post-graduate
qualification (M.A.) in Marathi during the academic year
2006-07. The petitioner has completed B.Ed. with special

¶29

Marathi in June, 2013. The order issued by the Education
Officer (Secondary) discloses that the approval has been
refused mainly on the ground that the petitioner has

¶30

completed his graduation in science faculty and has
acquired post-graduate qualification in Marathi subject.
Since the petitioner has not acquired his graduation
training with Marathi as a subject, the approval to his
appointment came to be rejected. It is not disputed that
the petitioner possesses post-graduate qualification in
Marathi and as such is qualified to teach Marathi

¶31

subject. There is nothing in Schedule B Clause (ii)
which prescribes educational qualifications for trained
teacher in secondary school debarring the petitioner from
consideration for appointment as a teacher in Marathi
subject.

¶32

3] Prima facie , we are satisfied that the petitioner

¶33

possesses requisite qualification for being appointed as
a Marathi teacher. Since it has been pointed out that
the services of the petitioner have been terminated

¶34

 WP 6515/13 with CA 11788/13

¶35

- 3 -

¶36

during the pendency o the petition by issuing the order

¶37

on 12.10.2013 by the management, we do not deem it

¶38

necessary to entertain the challenge of the petitioner to
the order of refusal to accord approval by the Education
Officer. The petitioner shall have to challenge the
order issued by the management terminating his services
before the School Tribunal. If the petitioner tenders an
appeal to the School Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from today, the School Tribunal shall consider the
appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. The
School Tribunal shall also consider the period spent in
prosecuting the remedy of writ petition before this Court
while considering the application seeking condonation of
delay that will be presented by the petitioner along with
the appeal.

¶39

4]With directions as aforesaid, the writ petition
stands disposed of. Civil Application No.11788/2013 also
does not survive and disposed of as such.

¶40

ndk/c1831418

Ashok Udhav Kothawale v. the State of Maharshtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Udhav Kothawale v. the State of Maharshtra 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

Vinayak Kamalakar Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandkumar Pandurangrao More Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sandhya Ashok Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Namdeo Satish More Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Saxant Madhavrao Maske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Sillod through I/C Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others