Allowed

Maher Astiveng Girls School v. Suresh Shankarrao Shinde and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2016WP/6840/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A teacher appointed in 2000 was orally terminated and later reinstated by appellate authorities, but original orders remained unimplemented due to lack of vacant posts. The High Court directed authorities to grant approval without rejecting solely on vacancy grounds and ordered absorption in another school.

What did the court decide?

Directions to grant approval to appointment irrespective of vacancy in original school and to absorb petitioner in any other handicap school expeditiously.

Maher Astiveng Girls School Vs Suresh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

903.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

903 WRIT PETITION NO. 435 OF 2011

¶4

WITH CA/1240/2012 AND CA/2481/2015 IN WRIT PETITION

¶5

NO.435/20011

¶6

Suresh Shankarrao Shinde... Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ... Respondents
others

¶9

Mr. U. R. Awate h/for Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocate for
the petitioners
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, AGP for respondents 1 and 2
Mrs. Supriya Pansambal h/for Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate
for respondent No.4

¶10

Mr. P. G. Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.8

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 6840/2011

¶13

Maher Astiveng Girls School... Petitioner

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

The State of Maharashtra and ... Respondents
others

¶16

Mrs. Supriya Pansambal h/for Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate
for the petitioner

¶17

Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent State.

¶18

Mr. U. R. Awate h/for Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.

¶19

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:18th October, 2016

¶20

O R D E R:

¶21

1.Mr. Awate, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P. No.435/2011 states that the petitioner was

¶22

1/7

¶23

appointed as Craft Teacher on 11.09.2000 in Respondent
No.6 School. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner was continuously discharging his duties,
however, the Management did not forward the proposal
seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
On 11.02.2005, services of the petitioners were orally
terminated. The petitioner filed an appeal on

¶24

07.05.2006 before the Appellate Authority. Vide
judgment and order dated 09.05.2007, the Appellate
Authority allowed the appeal, set aside the termination
and directed respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to allow the
petitioner to resume duties.

¶25

2. Writ petition was filed against the said order
by the respondents. This Court, vide judgment and order
dated 29.09.2007, dismissed the said writ petition
challenging judgment of the Appellate authority
directing reinstatement of the petitioner. The learned
counsel submits that the said order is not being
implemented. The application was given to the Social
Welfare Officer. The Social Welfare Officer directed
respondents 6 and 7 to accommodate the petitioner,
however to no avail.

¶26

3. The learned counsel further petitioner submits

¶27

2/7

¶28

903.odt

¶29

that the petitioner was subsequently allowed to join on
16.01.2009 in respondent No.6 school. The President of
Respondent No.6 school again orally terminated the
services of the petitioner. The Social Welfare Officer
directed the respondents to release salary of the
petitioner as oral termination is illegal and directed
respondents to allow the petitioner to join the

¶30

services. The learned counsel submits that again the
appeal was filed by the petitioner. Respondent No.2,
after hearing parties, allowed the appeal and set aside
the second termination and directed the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner. The respondents have not

¶31

taken steps to implement the said orders. The
respondents even failed to grant approval to the

¶32

appointment of the petitioner. The learned counsel
submits that the petitioner is in continuous services

¶33

since 11.09.2000. The petitioner is not being paid
salary nor is allowed to discharge his duties. On the
contrary, respondent No.3, on 13.01.2012 issued a
letter thereby refusing to grant approval at present
and stated that whenever the post becomes vacant,
approval would be granted. The learned counsel submits

¶34

that the even as per the seniority list maintained by

¶35

the respondents, the person junior to the petitioner

¶36

3/7

¶37

903.odt

¶38

has been granted approval and the petitioner, though is
senior, is not being granted approval.

¶39

4. Mrs. Deshpande, the learned AGP states that the
order passed by the appellate authority cannot be
implemented as it is. The person who is junior to the
petitioner in the seniority list has been granted
approval pursuant to the orders passed by the
appropriate Court. According to the learned AGP, there
are five posts excess with the respondent Institution.
There were only 13 sanctioned posts when the respondent
trust was running two schools. One school is closed in

¶40

the year 2007 and as such, there are only four
sanctioned posts in the school which was being run and
in the closed down school there were 9 sanctioned
posts. Excess teachers are employed by the management
and as such approval cannot be granted. No error is
committed by the the Authority while issuing the
impugned communication.

¶41

5. Mr. Rodge, the learned counsel appearing for

¶42

respondent No.8 submits that though in the seniority
list produced on record, respondent No.8 is shown at

¶43

serial No.19, respondent No.8 is senior to the
petitioner and his date of appointment is of the year

¶44

4/7

¶45

903.odt

¶46

1998 whereas, the petitioner is appointed in the year
2000.

¶47

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned
counsel for the respective parties, it transpires that
the there is no vacant posts in respondent No.6
institution where the petitioner was working.

¶48

7. The management forwarded a proposal seeking

¶49

approval to the appointment of the petitioner. None of
the parties dispute that the petitioner was appointed
on 11.09.2000. Common seniority list produced on
record, which is relied by all the parties, shows that
respondent No.8 is at Serial No.19, whereas the
petitioner is at Serial No.18. Appointment of
respondent No.8 is already approved, may be under the
orders of the Court. The same now cannot be a subject
matter of debate. The order passed by the appellate
authority has become final and the same is not assailed
by any party. The said order directs reinstatement and
also other reliefs are granted.

¶50

8. Today, it is not disputed that respondent No.6

¶51

school does not have vacant post. The petitioner is

¶52

working since the year 2000. It is fault of the
Management in not forwarding the proposal seeking

¶53

5/7

¶54

903.odt

¶55

approval to the appointment of the petitioner. For the
same, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Even as
per seniority list, relied by the respondent State,
the person junior to the petitioner is already given
approval, may be the approval is erroneously given,
that cannot be a precedent. However, it is fact that
the orders passed by the appellate authority is not

¶56

assailed by any of the parties which directs
reinstatement of the petitioner. It would not be
possible for respondent no.6 also or the authorities

¶57

to direct accommodation of the the petitioner in
respondent no.6 as there is no vacant post. To resolve

¶58

this anomalous situation, we pass following order:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

i. The respondent authorities are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment. The approval shall not be rejected only on the ground that the school in which the petitioner was working does not have vacant post.

¶61

ii. The petitioner shall be kept in list of surplus
candidates and shall be absorbed in any other
Handicap School. The said exercise be done
expeditiously.

¶62

9.Writ petition No.435/2011 is accordingly

¶63

6/7

¶64

disposed of.

¶65

10. In view of disposal of writ petition
No.435/3022, writ petition No.6840/2011 stands disposed
of. Civil applications also stand disposed of.

¶66

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶67

JPC

¶68

7/7

Maher Astiveng Girls School v. Suresh Shankarrao Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maher Astiveng Girls School v. Suresh Shankarrao Shinde and Ors.

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

Deepak Dilip Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dinesh Shankar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akka Chunya Pawra Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Narayan Kishanrao Bhise Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Balasaheb Soma Jadhav Vs the State of Maharasthra and Others

Imran Nasir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others