Partly allowed

Smt. Jyotsna Pandit Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014WP/9916/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench quashed an Education Officer order rejecting a teacher's approval due to age and qualification gaps. The matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned hearing of all parties including the petitioner, management, and an intervenor within three months to decide entitlement in the Primary Section.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.10.2009 quashed; matter remanded to Education Officer to hear all parties and pass reasoned order within three months.

Smt. Jyotsna Pandit Patil Vs State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP9916_12.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9916 OF 2012

¶6

Jyotsna Pandit Patil ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2445 OF 2013

¶9

Varsharani Madukarrao Ahire @ Varsha Mahendra Abhonkar	... Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and others	... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Nasir Masih Shaikh i/b. Mr. Shaikh N. Masih & Associates for Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. P. N. Joshi for Respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. A. A. Siddiqui, Applicant in C.A.2445 of 2013.

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 16^TH DECEMBER, 2014.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner claims to be a teacher possessing B.Sc. B.Ed. degree. It is

¶15

submitted that the approval as a trained teacher was rejected without looking into

¶16

the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment

¶17

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4632 of 1999 ( Tukaram T. Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra ) and connected matters on

¶18

2/3 WP9916_12.sxw

¶19

06.05.2004 as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 Bom. 394 . The Eduction Officer rejected the approval on the ground that the petitioner is over-age and is not possessing D.Ed. qualification. In between, certain developments have taken place. Intervenor in Civil Application No.2445 of 2013 was appointed as a trained teacher whose services were approved for one year. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the intervenor were appointed on the same date. Petitioner was pursuing alternate remedies. The management assured the petitioner some help and support and therefore, the petitioner could not approach this Court.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that let the Education Officer deal with the issues afresh and take appropriate decision.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for intervenor has no objection if the issue is considered afresh by the Education Officer.

¶22

This Petition is pending since last two years. We have perused the Rojnama. We have also perused the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Education Officer wherein the Education Officer rejected the approval / proposal of the petitioner on the grounds of petitioner being over-age and not possessing

¶23

D.Ed. qualification.

¶24

3/3 WP9916_12.sxw

¶25

The petitioner places reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Tukaram T. Chaudhari (supra) as also Jayashree Sunil Chavan (supra). In view of the facts of the case and the submissions advanced, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the respondent No.3 - Education Officer.

¶26

The impugned order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the respondent No.3Education Officer is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 - Education Officer to hear all the necessary parties including the petitioner, representative of the respondent management and the intervenor in Civil Application No.2445 of 2013. The Education Officer shall call for the relevant record from the management and thereafter pass a brief reasoned order in respect of as to whether the petitioner or any other employee would be entitled for getting approval as a trained teacher in the Primary Section of the school. This decision shall be taken within three months from today.

¶27

With aforesaid observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. Civil Application No.2445 of 2013 is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(A.P. BHANGALE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶29

Minal Parab

Smt. Jyotsna Pandit Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyotsna Pandit Patil v. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kashinath Patil and Ors. Vs the Collector and Ors.

M/S. Paranjape Schemes Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Sujit Himmatlal Mutha and Anr.

M/S. Paranjape Schemes Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Sujit Himmatlal Mutha and Anr.

Head Master, Asha Marathi Vidyalay, by Bharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Sapre R. R. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Higher and Technical Education and Anr.

Ratankumar Srikisan Rathi Vs Project Director National Highway Authority and Ors.