Dismissed

Shri Arvind Shrawan Kashiwar and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC18 Mar 2015WP/5280/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging order directing former teachers of a Government aided ashram school to join other Government aided schools after recognition withdrawal. Court dismissed petition finding no right to absorption in Government schools and held petitioners abused process of court by refusing to join aided schools.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; petitioners not entitled to salary from the date of impugned order.

Shri Arvind Shrawan Kashiwar and Others Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp5280.1 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5280 OF 2014

¶5

Arvind Shrawan Kashiwar and others

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Mr.P.S.Khubalkar, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.D.P.Thakare, Addl.G.P.for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18.03.2015.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order of the respondent No.3 dated 22/08/2014 directing the petitioners to join in the various Government aided ashram schools mentioned in the order.

¶12

According to the petitioners, the petitioners were working in the ashram school which was a Government aided ashram school at Kamangadh. By an order dated 10/07/2014, the recognition of the ashram school at Kamangadh was withdrawn. The petitioners were by the impugned order dated 22/08/2014 asked to join in the various Government aided ashram schools. Instead of joining in the various Government aided ashram schools in pursuance of the order dated 22/08/2014, the petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the said order.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners could have been absorbed only in Government ashram schools and not in Government aided ashram schools. It is

¶14

2/3

¶15

wp5280.1 4

¶16

stated that the action of the respondents in absorbing the petitioner in the Government aided ashram schools after the cancellation of the recognition of the ashram school at Kamangadh is bad-in-law.

¶17

Shri Thakare, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that after the petitioners were relieved from the ashram school at Kamangadh and were directed to join in the various Government aided ashram schools mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioners have failed to join their duties in the various Government aided ashram schools. It is stated that the petitioners have not worked in any ashram school after they were relieved from the ashram school at Kamangadh. It is stated that the State is not obliged to absorb the petitioners in the Government ashram school as stated on behalf of the petitioners.

¶18

We do not find any illegality in the impugned order directing the petitioners to join in the various Government aided ashram schools on the cancellation of the recognition of the ashram school at Kamangadh. The petitioners have no right whatsoever to seek their absorption in Government ashram schools, more so, when the school at Kamangadh was also not a Government ashram school and was only receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. We find that the petitioners were not desirous to put in their services in any ashram school and the petitioners have abused the process of Court by filing the instant petition challenging the order directing the absorption of the petitioner in Government aided ashram schools after the recognition of the Government aided ashram school at Kamangadh was cancelled. The petitioners would not be

¶19

3/3

¶20

wp5280.1 4

¶21

entitled to receive the salary from the date of the impugned order till they join the services in the Government aided ashram schools in terms of the impugned order. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

KHUNTE

Shri Arvind Shrawan Kashiwar and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Arvind Shrawan Kashiwar and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Others

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

Shri Narayan S/O Parasram Meshram, Deceased through Lrs Kalpana Narayan Meshram and Others Vs Smt. Sheetal Wd/O Vinay Meshram and Another

Archana W/O Sunil Kale Vs Sunil S/O Rameshrao Kale

Archana W/O Sunil Kale Vs Sunil S/O Rameshrao Kale

Ravidayal S/O Ishwardayal Patle Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of General Administration, Mumbai

Shankarrao S/O Madhorao Nakade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2 Others

Sudam S/O Kondiba Darade Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of Education Mumbai and Others