Disposed

Ashfaq Ahmed Rayees Ahmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Apr 2016WP/2531/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, disposed of five writ petitions challenging a recruitment ban on Assistant Teachers in minority institutions. The Court relied on a prior judgment holding that the 2012 resolution ban does not apply to minority institutions and held that the 2014 resolution is not retrospective. It directed the State to decide on the petitions' appointments within two

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider proposals and take a decision before 30th May 2016 after hearing Institutions No.3 and 4.

Ashfaq Ahmed Rayees Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2528.16WP+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2528 OF 2016

¶6

ABID HUSSAIN ZAINODDIN … PETITIONER.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS… RESPONDENTS.

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh

¶9

P.

¶10

AGP for Respondents: Mr.S.B. Pulkundwar.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.
Syed.

¶11

AND

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 2529 OF 2016

¶13

SHAIKH FARHA ATIQUE… PETITIONER.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS.… RESPONDENTS.

¶14

...

¶15

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh
P.

¶16

AGP for Respondents:Mr.V.S. Badakh.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.

¶17

Syed.

¶18

AND

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO. 2530 OF 2016

¶20

2528.16WP+

¶21

2 ANSARI SWALEHA BATOOL SHABBIR AHMED. … PETITIONER. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS.

¶22

...

¶23

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh
P.

¶24

AGP for Respondents: Mrs.A.V. Gondhalekar.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.
Syed.

¶25

AND

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2016

¶27

ASHFAQ AHMED RAYEES AHMED… PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS… RESPONDENTS.

¶28

...

¶29

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh
P.

¶30

AGP for Respondents: Mr.S.B. Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.
Syed.

¶31

…
AND

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 2532 OF 2016

¶33

ANSARI SADEQUA BANO
SHAFIQUE AHMED… PETITIONER.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS… RESPONDENTS.

¶34

...

¶35

2528.16WP+

¶36

¶37

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh
P.

¶38

AGP for Respondents: Mr.V.S. Badakh.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.

¶39

Syed.

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO. 2533 OF 2016

¶41

AFREEN BANO ABDUL QAYYUM … PETITIONER.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS.… RESPONDENTS.

¶42

...

¶43

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh
P.

¶44

AGP for Respondents: Mr.V.S. Badakh.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.
Syed.

¶45

AND

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO. 2534 OF 2016

¶47

QUDSIYA NAHEED ATEEQUR
REHMAN... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS… RESPONDENTS.

¶48

...

¶49

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Brahme Shailesh
P.

¶50

AGP for Respondents: Mr.S.B. Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.R.
Syed.

¶51

2528.16WP+

¶52

¶53

CORAM:S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Dated: APRIL 20, 2016

¶54

PER COURT :-

¶55

1.Since common question / point is involved in
all these petitions, the same are being heard and
disposed of by common order.

¶56

2.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that, the ban for recruitment on the post
of Assistant Teacher / Shikshan Sevak, imposed
by the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012
and in particular, Clause 1.8 of the said
resolution, cannot be made applicable in case of
the minority institutions. In support of this
contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners
invited our attention to the unreported judgment
dated 2nd September, 2013 delivered by this Court
in case of Parbhani Education Society Parbhani vs

¶57

The State of Maharashtra and anr. (Writ Petition
No.3707 of 2013).

¶58

2528.16WP+

¶59

¶60

3.He further submitted that, so far the
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.2528/2016,
2530/2016, 2531/2016, 2532/2016 and 2533/2016 are
concerned, they have been appointed prior to
issuance of the Government Resolution dated 20th
June, 2014 by the School Education and Sports
Department,GovernmentofMaharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and therefore, the provisions
of the said Government Resolution cannot be made
applicable with retrospective effect in cases of
the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions.
Therefore, he further submits that yet,
respondent No.2 has not taken decision on the
proposals submitted by the respondents No.3 and 4
for approval to the appointment of petitioners,
they may be directed to take decision within a
stipulated period.

¶61

4.On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for
the respondents / State, relying on the averments
in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
No.2, submits that the procedure prescribed under
the Government Resolution dated 20th June, 2014 is

¶62

2528.16WP+

¶63

¶64

applicable even for the appointment to be made by
the minority institution. Therefore, the learned
AGP submits that the petition may be rejected.

¶65

5.We have carefully considered the submissions
of the learned Counsel for the parties. With
their able assistance, perused the pleadings in
the petitions, annexures thereto and reply filed
by respondent No.2. In fact, respondent No.2
ought to have decided the proposals submitted by
the respondent – institution for approval to the
appointments of the petitioners. However,
respondent No.2 has not taken any decision on the
same. Since the decision is not taken by
respondent No.2, we propose to give directions to
respondent No.2 to take decision within a
stipulated period on the proposals submitted by
the respondent – management seeking approval to
the appointment of the petitioners.

¶66

6.So far applicability of Clause 1.8 of the
Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 issued
by the School Education & Sports Department is

¶67

2528.16WP+

¶68

¶69

concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in
case of Parbhani Education Society Parbhani
(supra), has considered applicability of the said
clause to the appointments made by the minority
institutions and ruled that the said clause
cannot be made applicable for the appointments

¶70

made by the minority institutions. To that
effect, conclusion has been recorded in para 14
of the said judgment. Therefore, the said clause
cannot be made applicable in cases of
appointments of the petitioners since their
appointments have been made by the minority
institutions.

¶71

7.So far as applicability of Government
Resolution dated 20th June, 2014 is concerned, as
rightly contended by the Counsel for the
petitioners that, the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.2528/2016, 2530/2016, 2531/2016,
2532/2016 and 2533/2016 have been appointed prior
to coming into force the said Government
Resolution and, therefore, the provisions of the
said Government Resignation cannot be made
applicable with retrospective effect in case of

¶72

2528.16WP+

¶73

¶74

these petitioners.

¶75

8.In the light of discussion in the foregoing
paragraphs, we direct respondent No.2 to consider
the proposals submitted by the respondent –
institution for approval to the appointments of
the petitioners, keeping in view the discussion
in the foregoing paragraphs and take a decision,
as expeditiously as possible; however, on or
before 30th May, 2016. Before taking such
decision, respondent No.2 should afford an
opportunity of hearing to respondents No.3 and 4.
Respondents No.3 and 4 to appear before
respondent No.2 on 27th April, 2016 and put forth

¶76

their contention and also the documents in
support of their contentions, if necessary.
Respondent No.2 to allow respondents No.3 and 4
to place on record documents and after hearing
respondents No.3 and 4, to take decision on the
said proposals, as expeditiously as possible.
However, on or before 30thMay, 2016 and

¶77

communicate the decision so taken to the
respondents No.3 and 4.

¶78

2528.16WP+

¶79

¶80

All the petitions are disposed of on above
terms. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of
this order.

¶81

 (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶82

Kadam/*

Ashfaq Ahmed Rayees Ahmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashfaq Ahmed Rayees Ahmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhawati Devidas Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its Treasurer Amar Pasha Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abid Hussain Zainoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ansari Sadequa Bano Shafique Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others