Allowed

Sunita Sanjeev Yadav v. the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2015WP/1442/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Education Officer's rejection of approval for the Petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher, holding that the Officer was bound by the School Tribunal's finding on the appointment's regularity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Education Officer directed to grant approval for appointment as Assistant Teacher from 1.8.2012 and release arrears of salary within four months.

Sunita Sanjeev Yadav Vs the Education Officer… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

30-wp-1442-14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1442 OF 2014

Sunita Sanjeev Yadav

….Petitioner.

Vs.

1 The Education Officer, (Secondary), and 5 ors. ….Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Sunil Dighe for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Mr. Arvind G. Kothari for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 07.01.2015

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevek in the Respondent No.5-School and Junior College for a period of three years on probation with effect from 25.08.2006. According to the Petitioner, proper procedure was followed by the management before appointing the Petitioner on the post of shikshan sevek. However, the management terminated the services of the Petitioner without any basis by an order dated 17.04.2009 and the

¶16

1/5

¶17

dgm 2 30-wp-1442-14.sxw

¶18

Petitioner challenged the order of termination before the School Tribunal in an Appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981. In view of the stay granted by the School Tribunal, the Petitioner continued to work in the Respondent No.5--School. The School Tribunal, by the judgment dated 14.12.2011 allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and quashed and set aside the order of termination. The School Tribunal directed the management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service. The management challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.1396/2012. The High Court refused to grant interim stay in the said writ petition and, therefore, the Petitioner continued to work with the Respondent No.5-School. During the pendency of the writ petition, the management and the Petitioner entered into a settlement and the writ petition was disposed of in view of the consent terms. In view of the consent terms, the Respondent-management permitted the Petitioner to work as an Assistant Teacher and the Petitioner gave up her claim for the salary from the management. After the consent terms were recorded and the writ petition was disposed of, the management sent the proposal of the Petitioner to the Education Officer for grant of approval. The Education Officer rejected the proposal on the ground that proper procedure for recruitment was not followed while appointing the Petitioner on the post of shikshan sevek in the year 2006. The Petitioner has impugned the order of

¶19

2/5

¶20

dgm 3 30-wp-1442-14.sxw

¶21

the Education Officer in the instant Petition.

¶22

Shri Dighe, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Education Officer was not justified in denying the approval to the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. It is stated that the Petitioner was appointed as a shikshan sevek in the year 2006 and she had successfully completed the tenure of three years as a shikshan sevek. It is stated that the School Tribunal had allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and had directed the management to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service. It is stated that the Education Officer was a party to the Appeal before the Tribunal and it is therefore not proper on the part of the Education Officer to now deny approval to the Petitioner on the post of an Assistant Teacher.

¶23

Shri Kothari, the learned counsel for the management, supported the case of the Petitioner and submitted that the Education Officer was duty bound to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher from 2012 as per the consent terms as the Education Officer was a party to the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and the Education Officer had never challenged the order of the Tribunal.

¶24

The learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the order of the Education Officer and submitted that at the time of appointment of the Petitioner as a shikshan sevek, the management had not followed the proper procedure. It is submitted that since the Petitioner cannot be said to have completed three years of service as a shikshan sevek, the Education

¶25

3/5

¶26

dgm 4 30-wp-1442-14.sxw

¶27

Officer rightly refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher though the Education Officer was willing to grant the same as a shikshan sevek.

¶28

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Education Officer was not justified in refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.08.2012. The Petitioner was appointed as a shikshan sevek in the year 2006 and while the Petitioner was on the verge of completion of the tenure of three years as a shikshan sevek, the management had terminated the services of the Petitioner. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was allowed and the management was directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service. It is rightly pointed out by the Petitioner and the management that though the Respondent/Education Officer was a party to the Appeal, the Education Officer had not challenged the order of the Tribunal and its finding that the Petitioner was appointed by the management by following the due procedure for recruitment. In view of the judgment of the School Tribunal that was binding on the Education Officer, the Education Officer could not have refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.8.2012 when the Tribunal held that the appointment of the Petitioner as a shikshan sevek was just and proper and the Petitioner was entitled to be continued in service with continuity of service. In the facts of

¶29

4/5

¶30

dgm 5 30-wp-1442-14.sxw

¶31

the case, the Education Officer ought to have granted an approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.8.2012.

¶32

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.8.2012 and release the arrears of the salary of the Petitioner within a period of four months.

¶33

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

¶34

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶35

5/5

Sunita Sanjeev Yadav v. the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sanjeev Yadav v. the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane and Ors.

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

Dr. Archana Kocharekar Vs Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and 3 Ors.

Union of India Vs Govindnarayan Puranmal Mundra

M. Redha Jaffer Mandeel Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and Ors.

Shri. Dattatraya Kashinath Raut and Anr. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Kevalchand Vora Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bhosael Anilkumar Vasantrao Vs Seretary, Social Welfare Dept. and Ors. Abh