Allowed

The Peoples Education Society, Vahal v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016WP/5099/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

P.C., a writ petition filed by The Peoples Education Society aggrieved by an order rejecting appointment prayer. The court followed Balmohan Vidya Mandir precedent holding reservations inapplicable for two Head Master posts and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 9th February 2016 passed by the respondent No.3 is set aside. Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c).

The Peoples Education Society, Vahal Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

YBG

24-wp-5099-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5099 OF 2016

¶6

The Peoples Education Society .. Petitioner - Versus - The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sagar A. Mane i/b. N.V.Bandiwadekar for petitioner Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for State.

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH DEU NAIK JJ. DATE : 15^th December 2016.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9^th February 2016, passed by the respondent No.3 the petitioner has filed this petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the question involved in this petition has also been considered and decided by a Division Bench

¶11

of this Court in the case of Balmohan Vidya Mandir Vs. State of Maharashtra (W.P.Lod.No.2286 of 2010) decided on 14^th October 2010.

¶12

2] In the present case, the petitioner's prayer for appointment has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. According to the petitioner, there were only two posts of Head Master and as such in view of the law

YBG

24-wp-5099-16

laid down by this court in the case of Balmohan Vidya Mandir (supra), when there are two posts, none of the posts can be reserved in view of the Government Resolution dated 5^th November 2009.

¶17

3] Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in para 8 of the reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 following categorical statements have been made by the State:-

¶18

“8. With reference to paras 8 to 11 of the petition, I say and submit that the contents in 12 are matter of record and are correct. As per orders issued/ passed by this Hon'ble High Court, the reservations will not be applicable when there are only two posts in the promotional cadre of Head Master. The issuance of Government Resolution dated 6^th February 2012 is a consequence of verdict/ orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Under the circumstances, it will be fit for the respondent No.3 to verify the roster maintained by the Management of the nonGovernment Recognised Secondary/ Higher Secondary Schools and certified accordingly. However, the respondent No.3 would explain as to why he is not prepared to act accordingly.”

YBG

24-wp-5099-16

4] Keeping in view the aforesaid stand taken by the State as also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Balmohan Vidya Mandir (supra), we are of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the said is set aside. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶23

(PRAKASH DEU NAIK, J)

¶24

(SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J)

The Peoples Education Society, Vahal v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Peoples Education Society, Vahal v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms.Geetanjali Tapan Dutta, Vs Public Health Department, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Sushma Murlidhar Ghadge and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Priyamvada Prasad Tokekar Vs Shri Kumar B. Khaire, Registrar, University of Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Devram Parvatrao Sathe and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.

Swaroop Tukaram Gadave Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, through Registrar and Anr.

Shri. Tathe Sharad Panditrao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.