Partly allowed

Shri. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2016WP/11686/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court reconsidered two writ petitions challenging appointment and dismissal orders in an aided school. It found the Appellate Authority failed to discuss procedural lapses, post vacancy, attendance, or surplus teacher recommendations. The court set aside the order and directed the Officer to rectify records.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. The District Social Welfare Officer is directed to call for the record, issue instructions for filling the post, and verify the record of ap

Shri. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/4

¶2

wp-11686-12.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11686 OF 2012

¶5

Mr.Hanmant R. Raut ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.10363 OF 2015

¶8

Shri Laxmi Krida va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

v/s.

¶11

Mr.Hanmant R. Raut & ors. ...Respondents

¶12

Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11686 of 2012 Mr.D.W.Bhosale for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.10363. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for State.

¶13

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &

¶14

A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 1 MARCH 2016

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Writ Petition No.10363 of 2015 is filed by the Management challenging the order passed by the Divisional Welfare Officer, Class-I, Pune Division, Pune. Writ Petition No.11686 of 2012 is filed by Shri Hanmant Raut, who was appointed by the Management as a teacher in the year 2007 for one year and thereafter for two years during the period between 2008 to 2010. By an order dated 29-12-2011, the District Social Welfare Officer, Solapur approved the appointments of four Asst.teachers as described in the said order for a period mentioned in the `Remark' column. The

1/4

Uday P. Kambli

2/4

wp-11686-12.doc

appointment of the Petitioner-Hanmant Raut was approved for a period from 16-6-2008 to 30-4-2010 with a further condition that no sooner the surplus teacher is made available the services of the Petitioner-Hanmant would stand terminated automatically and it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-Hanmant to execute such a Bond.

¶23

The contention of the Petitioner-Hanmant Raut is that to accommodate daughter of the President of the Institution, Ms.Yojana P. Babar was appointed on 18-6-2010 and approval was accorded by the District Social Welfare Officer, Solapur from 15-6-2011 onwards.

¶24

It is contended that as the Management refused the PetitionerHanmant Raut to join the services or sign the muster-roll, he preferred an Appeal before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune. The Management in spite of service of notice remained absent. The Appeal was decided by an order dated 25-6-2012 directing the Management to allow the Petitioner to sign the muster-roll as he was said to be in service.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing for the Management submits that the Petitioner-Hanmant was irregular in attending the school during the period of his appointment and even thereafter. Before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune, the learned Counsel for the Management asked for adjournment of the hearing, but it was denied and the matter proceeded exparte. Against which the present Writ Petition No.10362 of 2015 was filed.

2/4

Uday P. Kambli

3/4

wp-11686-12.doc

We have perused the record. Nothing is placed on record to show that the subject post was filled in by following appropriate mandatory procedure. The District Social Welfare Officer had remarked that the approval was for a prescribed period. This itself shows that the appointment order issued in favour of Hanmant Raut or Yojana Babar was temporary in nature. It could not be termed as appointment made by following prescribed procedure. The fact remains that since the year 2011 the Petitioner-Hanmant Raut is not discharging his duties as a teacher for whatever reasons. The question now is whether the view adopted by the Appellate Authority is reasonable and proper.

¶31

We have perused the order passed by the Appellate Authority. We find that the Appellate Authority has not discussed the issue whether the post was regular and vacant? Whether the mandatory procedure was followed in recruiting the employee? Whether the Petitioner-Hanmant Raut was regularly attending the school during the appointed period and thereafter? Whether the name of the surplus teacher was recommended by the District Social Welfare Officer to the Management or not? In absence of all these discussion, we find that the Appellate Authority's order is required to be interfered with.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(i) The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside.

¶34

(ii) We direct the District Social Welfare Officer,Solapur to call for entire record of the Management and issue suitable instructions for filling up the post on which the Petitioner-

3/4

Uday P. Kambli

4/4

wp-11686-12.doc

Hanmant was appointed and later on Yojana Babar was allowed to serve. The District Social Welfare Officer may take guidance from the State Authorities.

¶40

(ii) In case the Management fails to co-operate with the District Social Welfare Officer, appropriate recommendations be made for stopping the grant.

¶41

(iii) The concerned Authorities shall verify the entire record of the Management as regards the appointment orders, backlogs, appointment of surplus teacher and accordingly set right the record of the Management.

¶42

Both the Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶43

List the Petitions for `Direction' on 29 March 2016.

¶44

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶45

( NARESH H. PATIL J.)

¶46

4/4

¶47

Uday P. Kambli

Shri. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Tekchand Verma Vs Atomic Energy Education Society and Ors.

A. Qadeer a. Mannan Bijapure, through Poa, Sathi Bashir Ahamd Bashamiya Shaikh Vs the President, M. a. Pangal Anglo Urdu High School and Junior College of Arts and Science and Ors.

Saida Begum Daud Saheb and Anr. Vs Education Officer

The Secretary / Chairman, Shri Laxmi Krida Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Alegaon and Anr. Vs Mr. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut and Ors.

Shri. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Secretary / Chairman, Shri Laxmi Krida Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Alegaon and Anr. Vs Mr. Hanmant Ramchandra Raut and Ors.