Quashed

Devidas Govindrao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Oct 2016WP/6017/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two high school teachers were appointed without D.Ed. qualification but later acquired it. The court held that under Government resolutions, they are entitled to treated as trained primary teachers from the date of appointment, quashing orders denying this pay-scale and remitting the matter for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; respondent authority directed to decide petitioners' proposal for trained primary teacher pay-scale from date of appointment within six months.

Devidas Govindrao Chavan Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 6017/15 & another

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6017/2015

¶6

Devidas S/o Govindrao Chavan
Age 47 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Parli, Tq.Parli,
District Beed.

¶7

..Petitioner..

¶8

Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through,Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.
2] The Director,
V.J.N.T.,O.B.C. & S.B.C.
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3] The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4] The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Beed, Tq.and Dist.Beed.
5] Madhyamik Ashram School,
Shivajinagar, Tq.Parli,Dist.Beed.
Through its Headmaster.

¶9

 ...Respondents..

¶10

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.7884/2015

¶12

Gangutai Narayan Mahajan,
Age 59 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o C/o Bhaskar Mama Chate Niwas,
Near Bhagwanbaba Mandir, Shivaji Nagar,
Thermal Road,Parli, Tq.Parli,
District Beed.
..Petitioner..

¶13

WP 6017/15 & another

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

Versus

¶16

1] The State of Maharashtra
Through,Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.

¶17

2] The Accountant General (A & E)-II,
Maharashtra State,Nagpur
In front of Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur.
3] The Director,
V.J.N.T.,O.B.C. & S.B.C.
Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶18

4] The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
5] The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Beed, Tq.and Dist.Beed.
6] Madhyamik Ashram School,
Shivajinagar, Tq.Parli,Dist.Beed.
Through its Headmaster.

¶19

 ...Respondents..

¶20

 .....
Shri A.D.Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri B.A.Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 4.
 .....

¶21

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 19.10.2016

¶22

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

¶23

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of

¶24

WP 6017/15 & another

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are
taken up for final disposal at this stage.

¶27

2]Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶28

the petitioners possess the qualification of B.A.,
B.P.Ed. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant
Teacher on 13.6.1994 in WP 7884/2015 and on 1.6.1996 in

¶29

WP 6017/2015. The petitioners in both these writ
petitions had completed their D.Ed. on 31.12.2002. From
31.12.2002, the petitioners are paid the pay-scale of a

¶30

trained Primary Teacher. However, from the date of their
appointment till acquiring the qualification of D.Ed.,
the petitioners are paid salary as that of an untrained
teacher. The learned counsel submits that vide the

¶31

Government resolution dated 11.11.2011, the policy

¶32

decision is taken by the State that if the teacher in the
primary school possesses the qualification of graduate,
then in that case, the said teacher since the date of his

¶33

appointment has to be paid in the pay-scale of a trained
Primary Teacher. The learned counsel also relies on the

¶34

Government resolution dated 1.6.2000 stating that those

¶35

teachers who have completed their B.P.Ed. with one school
subject, then those teachers are not required to undergo

¶36

WP 6017/15 & another

¶37

- 4 -

¶38

further degree course of B.Ed. Then the same is

¶39

considered equivalent. The learned counsel submits that

¶40

the proposal seeking approval for the pay-scale of a

¶41

trained Primary Teacher since the date of their
appointment till acquiring D.Ed. qualification has been
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners do not

¶42

possess the B.Ed. qualification. The same is illegal.
The mark memos placed on record specifically show that
the petitioners had Marathi as a school subject.

¶43

3]The learned AGP states that the petitioners are

¶44

not possessing B.Ed. qualification. As such, the

¶45

Government resolution dated 11.11.2011 does not come to

¶46

the aid of the petitioners. No error has been committed
by the Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare while
rejecting the proposal of the petitioners seeking pay-
scale of a trained Primary Teacher.

¶47

4]We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

5]It is not disputed that the petitioners possess

¶49

the qualification of B.A., B.P.Ed. at the time of their

¶50

initial appointment and subsequently they have acquired
D.Ed. qualification in the year 2002. There is no

¶51

WP 6017/15 & another

¶52

- 5 -

¶53

dispute with regard to the pay-scale being paid to the
petitioners after having acquired D.Ed. qualification.
The only dispute is for a period since the date of
appointment till the petitioners acquired D.Ed.
qualification. For the said period, the petitioners are
paid in the scale of untrained teacher. The Government
resolution dated 11.11.2011 explicitly lays down that

¶54

even those teachers who do not possess D.Ed.
qualification but are possessing graduate degree can be
considered as trained Primary Teachers. The Government
resolution dated 1.6.2000 also states that those persons
who have completed B.P.Ed. course alongwith one another
school subject are to be considered eligible and are

¶55

given exemption from passing B.Ed. course. The affidavit

¶56

in reply filed by the respondent no.4 is also on the
premise that the petitioners do not have teaching subject

¶57

at the level of B.P.Ed. and as such are not entitled to

¶58

get the benefit of Government resolution dated 1.6.2000.
The mark memos produced on record prima facie show that

¶59

the petitioners had Marathi as one of the school
subjects. The said factum was not probably placed before
the respondent authority nor the proposal contained such

¶60

WP 6017/15 & another

¶61

a explanation.

¶62

6]Considering the above, the impugned orders are

¶63

quashed and set aside. The respondent authority shall
decide the proposal of the petitioners seeking trained
primary teachers pay-scale from the date of their
appointment till acquiring D.Ed. qualification on its own
merits in accordance with law expeditiously and
preferably within six months. The petitioners may place
on record before the respondent authority the documents

¶64

on which they seek to place reliance. Rule is
accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶65

ndk/ c19101618.doc

Devidas Govindrao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Govindrao Chavan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Kishanrao Bhise Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Maher Astiveng Girls School Vs Suresh Shankarrao Shinde and Ors.

Balasaheb Soma Jadhav Vs the State of Maharasthra and Others

Sunil Annasaheb Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Vishal Apasing Pawara

Nasir Husen Abdul Kayyum Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others