Allowed

Suresh Bhakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2015WP/2160/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged non-payment of salary due to the withdrawal of appointment approval. The Education Officer admitted the withdrawal was wrongful. The Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to accord approval and pay unpaid salary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to accord approval to the petitioner's appointment and pay unpaid salary as per rules.

Suresh Bhakar Patil Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 ) wp2160.02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 2160 OF 2002

¶4

Suresh s/o. Bhaskar Patil..Petitioner
Age. 32 years, Occ. Service
as Asst. Teacher in Shri Sant
Muktabai Secondary School, Manur,
Budrak, Tq. Bodwad, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
2.The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
3.Shri Sant Muktabai Sanstha,
Muktainagar, Tq. Muktainagar,
Dist. Jalgaon, through President.
4.Head Master,
Shri Sant Muktabai Secondary
High School, Manur Budruk,
Tq. Bodwad, Dist. Jalgaon.
5.Ajabrao s/o. Vyankatrao Patil
Age. 40 years, Occ. Service [t],
R/o. Morgaon, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
V.K. JADHAV,JJ.
DATED :08.01.2015

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] :-

¶9

1.Heard. The facts leading to this litigation are as
under:-

¶10

2.The petitioner secured education up to M.Sc. B.Ed.
On 27th November, 1999, respondent No.3 advertised a post of
Assistant Teacher, who should possess qualification of B.Sc.
B.Ed. The petitioner applied and was selected by the
Committee. He was appointed on probation for two years on
01.01.2000. Respondent No.5 was also appointed. Apparently,
both these cases were sent for approval to the Education
Officer. The Education Officer granted approval for
appointment of respondent No.5 only. Within few days, he
realized that he had committed mistake and cancelled approval
granted in favour of the respondent No.5. This time he
granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Again
for the reasons best known to the Officer on 10th April, 2000,
he cancelled the earlier order and granted approval to the
appointment of respondent No.5 and withdrew the approval
which he had given in respect of the appointment of the
petitioner. The petitioner continued to work but could not
receive salary for want of approval. Therefore, he came to
this Court. The Education Officer by submitting reply to the
petition admitted that the approval granted for the

¶11

appointment of the petitioner was wrongly withdrawn on 10th
April, 2000. He also mentioned that the qualification of
respondent No.5 was not sufficient as per the advertisement.

¶12

3.In view of the unequivocal admission of error on
the part of the Education Officer, this petition deserves to
be allowed. We, however, make it clear that this judgment
should not be construed as judgment against respondent No.5.
His selection and approval to his appointment is not
connected to the cause of action for this petition. We are
told that respondent No.5 has already filed Writ Petition
No.1031 of 2008 challenging the decision of School Tribunal
which confirmed his termination. Therefore, the petition
stands allowed as per following order :-

¶13

4.Respondent No.2 shall accord approval to the
appointment of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be
paid unpaid salary as per rules, if it is not paid. Rule
made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶14

[V.K. JADHAV,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶15

snk /2015/JAN14/wp2160.02

Suresh Bhakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Bhakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Manohar Manekar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Jayant Ramdas Sonwane and Ors. Vs Jt.Director, Higher Education, Jalgaon and Ors.

Anilkumar Jagannath Lohar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Manik Yeshwanta Gaikwad

The State of Mah. Vs Gopal Baliram Mahajan

The State of Mah Vs Sanjay Vasant Shitole