Partly allowed

Kevalchand Ramchand Choudhari v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016WP/1245/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the cancellation of approval for the petitioner to hold the post of full-time Librarian. The court held the order illegal as it was passed without notice or hearing and contrary to government rules based on student strength.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's appointment as full-time Librarian is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

Kevalchand Ramchand Choudhari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 1245/05

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1245/2005

¶5

Kevalchand S/o Ramchand Chaudhari,
Age 35 years,Occ.:Service,
R/o C/o Narayanrao Mote,
Ghayal Nagar, Kacheri Road,
In front of Town Hall,Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra
through Director of Education,
(Secondary), Pune-1.
2] The Education Officer,
Secondary, Zilla Parishad,
Jalna.

¶9

3] Shri Jalna Gujrathi Samaj Sanstha,
Mutha Building, Jalna,
Through its Secretary.
4] C.T.M.K. Gujrati Vidyalaya,
Mutha Building, Jalna,
Through its Head Master.

¶10

 ...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Smt.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms.S.S.Raut, AGP for Respondent No.1.
None appeared for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 15.12.2016

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :

¶16

WP 1245/05

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

1]Smt.A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶19

submits that the petitioner was appointed as a part time
Librarian on 1.8.1998. As per the Government resolution
of the year 1994, if the strength of students is above
1000, one post of full time Librarian is made admissible.

¶20

The strength of the students was above 1000 and as such
the petitioner was given approval as a full time
Librarian on 1.2.2004. Subsequently, on 8.2.2004, the
said approval was abruptly canceled. The learned counsel

¶21

submits that the said order is without notice to the
petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. The
learned counsel submits that when the petitioner is
entitled for the post of full time Librarian with effect
from the date when the strength of students has crossed
1000, the impugned order canceling the approval already
granted is illegal.

¶22

2]The learned AGP submits that the policy decision was
taken by the Government resolution dated 26.3.2002 not to

¶23

permit additional post after 2002-03 so as to reduce the
financial burden. The permission granted by the
respondents was not as per the Government policy and,

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

therefore, the approval granted was withdrawn on
8.12.2004.

¶26

3]As per the Government resolution dated 28.6.1994,

¶27

the post of part time Librarian is to be upgraded as full
time Librarian in case the number of students exceed

¶28

1000. As the number of students had increased, the

¶29

proposal was submitted by the institution seeking
approval to the appointment of th petitioner as a full
time Librarian with effect from 1.9.2004. The same was

¶30

granted on 19.11.2014, however, abruptly vide the
impugned order, it is canceled.

¶31

4]It is not disputed anywhere in the affidavit in
reply field by the respondents that the strength of the
students of the institution had risen above 1000. It is
also a fact that the approval was granted to the

¶32

petitioner as a full time Librarian, however, the same
was abruptly withdrawn without notice to the petitioner
and without hearing the petitioner. We have also
considered this aspect while passing the order in Writ
Petition No.7779/2012. Even this Court at Nagpur in Writ
Petition No.6630/2013 with connected writ petitions under
order dated 28.1.2015 has given the similar benefit.

¶33

WP 1245/05

¶34

5]Considering the above, the impugned order rejecting
approval granted to the petitioner as full time Librarian
is quashed and set aside. Further consequential benefits
pursuant thereto be awarded to the petitioner. Rule is
accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶35

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶36

ndk/ c15121615.doc

Kevalchand Ramchand Choudhari v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kevalchand Ramchand Choudhari v. the State of Mah 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

Ramesh Asaram Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahendra Kanhaiyalal Jain Vs the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon and Others

Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar Vs the Union of India and Others

Javedkhan Mustafa Pathan and Others Vs Sanjaykumar Rathod

Uddhav Rangnath Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Baban Bajirao Khillari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others