Partly allowed

Ku. Rajani D/O Chandrabhan Madvai v. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 Others

Bombay HC26 Jul 2016WP/1380/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the petitioner's termination after obtaining teaching qualifications, the High Court partly allowed the petition. Due to insufficient staff justification and legal provisions allowing time for qualification, the court directed a hearing when salary release is conditional on role clarification.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to extend hearing opportunity, ascertain staff justification for academic year 2014-15, and decide within two months; petitioner's salary to be released as untrained teacher pendin

Ku. Rajani D/O Chandrabhan Madvai Vs Deputy Director… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2607wp1380.15

¶2

1/4

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 OF 2015

¶5

(Ku. Rajani d/o Chandrabhan Madavi vs. Deputy Director of Education and others)

¶6

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

¶7

Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.1.

¶8

Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JULY 26, 2016

¶11

Reply tendered by Adv. Kasat on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶12

Adv. Shende for petitioner is seeking time to file appropriate counter. However, we have rejected his request.

¶13

We find that petitioner has continued in employment since 2007. According to respondent no.2, at the relevant time, she did not possess necessary educational qualification. She obtained said qualification (D.Ed.) for the first time in August 2014. Thereafter proposal seeking proper approval to her employment was submitted and it has been rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy.

¶14

2607wp1380.15

¶15

2/4

¶16

The record shows that the staff justification for academic year 2012-13 and thereafter for academic year 2013-14 has been looked into for the said purpose. In the year 2012-13, total posts of Teachers including that of Head Master were eight and in 2013-14, same were seven. According to petitioner, School runs classes from Standard I to Standard VIII and hence, minimum eight Teachers and one Head Master/Principal are must.

¶17

We keep that contention open.

¶18

Perusal of impugned order dated 20/12/2014 shows that in the year 2013-14, total eight Teachers were functioning and, therefore, one Teacher was in excess. In 2014-15, again it has been mentioned that along with Head Master, eight Teachers were functioning and, therefore, one was surplus. However, staff justification for year 2014-15 is not produced on record by respondent no.1 Deputy Director or then by respondent no.2 Education Officer, who has passed the impugned order.

¶19

The petitioner also states that though she did not possess D.Ed. qualification, as per law, she was given time to acquire it and hence, her initial employment from 2007 till she secured D.Ed. qualification was already approved.

¶20

In this peculiar situation, we find that

¶21

2607wp1380.15

¶22

3/4

¶23

interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent no.2 to extend an opportunity of hearing to petitioner as also respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent no.2 shall find out the position and staff justification for academic year 2014-15 and also impact of contention that petitioner was given time to acquire D.Ed. qualification in accordance with Government policy.

¶24

The petitioner shall appear before respondent no.2 for the purpose of said hearing on 22/8/2016 and respondent no.2 shall take a suitable decision thereafter within next two months.

¶25

Till then salary of petitioner shall be released as before, i.e. as untrained Teacher.

¶26

The writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

khj

2607wp1380.15

4/4

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

¶33

Uploaded by : Uploaded on : Kamal H. Jeswani 28/07/2016 Private Secretary

Ku. Rajani D/O Chandrabhan Madvai v. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Rajani D/O Chandrabhan Madvai v. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 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

M/S Krushna Kumar Gokulchand Thr. Partner Mr. Krushna Kumar S/O Gokulchand Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Food, Mumbai and Others

Gram Panchayat, through Its Sarpanch, Smt. Jaywanta W/O Dhaniram Matale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development, Mumbai and 3 Others

Late Shri Vitthalraoji Chamat Smruti Sewa Sanstha, Hrough Its Sec. Dnyaneshwar v. Chamat and Anothe Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, and Others

Jayant Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon, Gondia, Thr. Its Secretary and 2 Others Vs Shri Nandkumar, State of Maha. of Education, Mumbai

Piyush Nemichand Dhoot Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, through Its Registrar and Another

Arpit Pradeep Gadbail and Another Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University Thr. Registrar and Others