Allowed

Smt. Shakuntala W/O Ramnarayan Singh Thakur v. the Education Officer (Secondary), Zill Parishad

Bombay HC16 Feb 2016WP/133/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the Education Officer to grant approval for the petitioner's promotion as Headmistress. The Court held the Officer inaction was illegal due to internal management disputes. The officer was warned and ordered to purchase law books, while arrears were to be cleared.

What did the court decide?

Direction to grant promotion approval; order to purchase law books worth Rs. 10,000; arrears to be cleared in six weeks.

Smt. Shakuntala W/O Ramnarayan Singh Thakur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/4

¶2

1602wp133.16.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2016

¶5

(Smt. Shakuntala w/o Ramnarayan Singh Thakur Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary), Z.P., Nagpur & another)

¶6

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

¶7

- - - - Shri O. D. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri P. N. Shende, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 16 FEBRUARY, 2016

¶9

The petitioner was unnecessarily required to approach this Court seeking direction to respondent No.1 to grant approval to her promotion as Headmistress.

¶10

Undisputedly, in a combined seniority list of the school run by respondent No.2, the petitioner, in accordance with the seniority, was entitled for promotion. Not only that, but one of the rival groups of the management had already submitted proposal for approval to the promotion of the petitioner as Headmistress. However, it appears that there is dispute in the management of respondent No.2-Trust and another group, represented by Shri Shende claiming to be in the management of the Trust, objected to the grant of approval to the promotion of the petitioner.

¶11

The Education Officer in his reply has stated that

¶12

since there is dispute amongst two groups over the

¶13

2/4

¶14

1602wp133.16.odt

¶15

management of respondent No.2-Trust, he did not grant approval to the proposal submitted by one of the factions.

¶16

We find that the stand taken by respondent No.1 is totally unsustainable. Respondent No.1 has no business to go into the question with regard to the dispute between two factions. Respondent No.1 could have very well examined the seniority list and upon examination of the seniority list could have come to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner, in accordance with the seniority list, was eligible for promotion to the post of Headmistress or not.

¶17

We find that on account of inaction on the part of respondent No.1, the petitioner was unnecessarily required to approach this Court.

¶18

When the matter was called out yesterday, the learned A.G.P. attempted to justify the action on behalf of respondent No.1. However, we made it clear that either respondent No.1 should come with approval order by 11 'O clock today or be ready to face serious consequences.

¶19

Respondent No.1, along with the approval order, is present in the Court.

¶20

We find that for no reason the petitioner was required to approach this Court for her legitimate claim. It is only on account of inaction on the part of respondent No.1 that

¶21

3/4

¶22

1602wp133.16.odt

¶23

the present petitioner was required to file this petition. This is not the first time that respondent No.1 has received an invitation to visit the Court. On an earlier occasion also Shri Omprakash Gudhe, the present incumbent in the office of respondent No.1 was invited to the Court since it was noticed that on account of his conduct certain illegalities had been committed.

¶24

At that time we were of the view that on his visit to the Court, he would mend his ways and would not repeat such mistakes. However, it appears that the present incumbent in the office of respondent No.1 has not learnt the lesson and continued with the same conduct.

¶25

We could have taken a serious view of the matter and directed stern action to be taken against Shri Omprakash Gudhe. However, he has tendered unconditional apology. We, therefore, issue warning to him that if hereinafter he indulges into such acts, the Court will take stern action against him.

¶26

However, we find that in order to understand him the consequence of his conduct, it will be necessary that some costs should be saddled upon him.

¶27

We, therefore, direct Shri Omprakash Gudhe to purchase the law books worth Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten

¶28

4/4

¶29

1602wp133.16.odt

¶30

thousand only) as per the list given by the learned Government Pleader and deposit the same with the Government Pleader's office within a period of one week from today. 13. Needless to state that the arrears payable to the petitioner shall be cleared within a period of six weeks from today. 14. With the above observations and directions the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

wwl

Smt. Shakuntala W/O Ramnarayan Singh Thakur v. the Education Officer (Secondary), Zill Parishad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala W/O Ramnarayan Singh Thakur v. the Education Officer (Secondary), Zill Parishad

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

Pravin Kale Vs Bhartiya Prashanskiya Seva Purva Prashikshan Kendra, Nagpur

Shri Suresh Shrawan Tangale and 6 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 4 Others

Natthu S/O Chottelal Yadav and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Deptt., of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Ravindra Sharadchandra Chaudhari and Others Vs Sanjay Khadse, Competent Auth. for Land Acquisition and Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola and Another

Bhartiya Sewa Acharya Education Society, Thr Its Secretary, Nagpur Vs Ku. Tulsi D/O Shankar Parate and Other

Bhimrao S/O Prabhusingh Rathod Vs the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and 3 Others