Quashed

Sunil Annasaheb Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Oct 2016WP/8050/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed an order rejecting a re-appointment proposal due to ST category backlog. The Court remanded the matter to the Education Officer to consider the 2006 roster and applicable 34% reservation, directing re-evaluation of the petitioners Kunbi OBC claim.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal based on the 2006 roster and 34% reservation.

Sunil Annasaheb Pawar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 8050/15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8050/2015

¶6

Sunil S/o Annasaheb Pawar

¶7

..Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

 ...Respondents..

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri M.S.Taur,Advocate h/f Shri Amol Kakade, Advocate for
the Petitioner.

¶13

MS.S.S.Raut,AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶14

Shri Prashant Nagarsoge, Advocate h/f Shri R.J.Godbole,
Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶15

Shri.K.D.Mote & Shri T.S.Lodhe, Advocates for respondent
no.4.

¶16

 .....

¶17

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

¶18

DATE: 19.10.2016

¶19

ORDER :

¶20

1]The learned counsel for the petitioner states that

¶21

the petitioner was appointed in the year 2006. The
petitioner was illegally terminated. The petitioner

¶22

filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. The appeal is

¶23

allowed. The petitioner is reinstated in service. The

¶24

order was challenged before this Court. This Court
issued directions directing the management to submit the

¶25

WP 8050/15

¶26

- 2 -

¶27

proposal. Pursuant thereto, the management submitted the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner. The said proposal is rejected on altogether
erroneous grounds. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner has the validity certificate as belonging to
Kunbi OBC. According to the learned counsel, the Roster

¶28

as of the year 2006 will have to be considered while
considering the validity about the appointment of the
petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Roster
of the year 2014 was being considered. At that time, the
reservation applicable was 50% whereas in the year 2006,
applicable reservation was 34%. The learned counsel
further submits that the Roster as approved in the year
2011 by the B.C. Cell was also on record. All these

¶29

aspects are not considered and only on the ground that
the backlog of scheduled tribe category existed, the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner is rejected.

¶30

2]The learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4

¶31

submits that as per the directions of this Court, the

¶32

proposal was submitted by the management to the
respondent no.2. The appointment of the petitioner was

¶33

WP 8050/15

¶34

- 3 -

¶35

not as against the seat reserved for ST category. The
petitioner has been validly appointed.

¶36

3]The learned AGP states that as per the Roster, the

¶37

backlog of ST category candidate existed. As the
petitioner does not belong to ST category, the proposal
is rightly rejected. Even there were various compliances
which were required to be made by the management, the
same were not made. The reasons have been given by the
Education Officer while rejecting the proposal seeking
approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

¶38

4]It is manifest from the record that the petitioner
was appointed in the year 2006 and was thereafter
terminated. The petitioner approached the School

¶39

Tribunal. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the
present petitioner and directed reinstatement holding
that the appointment of the petitioner was legal and

¶40

valid. In fact, the proposal was required to be
submitted by the management to the Education Officer in
time. The same does not appear to have been done.

¶41

5]Be that as it may, upon the directions of this

¶42

Court, the management submitted the proposal, though

¶43

belatedly. The petitioner contends that he has been

¶44

WP 8050/15

¶45

- 4 -

¶46

issued the validity certificate as belonging to Kunbi

¶47

OBC. The Roster approved by the B.C. Cell is to be
supplied and submitted by the respondent nos.3 & 4 to the
respondent no.2. The same cannot be said to be the fault
of the petitioner. The Education Officer was required to
consider the Roster as per the reservation applicable in

¶48

the year 2006 when the reservation applicable to such

¶49

schools was 34% and not 50%. It appears that while
passing the impugned order, the said aspect has not been
considered by the Education Officer.

¶50

6]The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The

¶51

petitioner and the management shall appear before the
Education Officer on 15.11.2016. The respondent nos.3 &
4 shall place on record before the Education Officer the
Roster duly approved by the B.C. Cell as in the year
2006. The Education Officer shall consider the

¶52

reservation applicable in the year 2006 i.e. 34% and
consider the proposal seeking approval to the appointment

¶53

of the petitioner afresh. The petitioner may also

¶54

produce the validity certificate issued to him before the
Education Officer. The compliances as are required and
detailed in the impugned order shall be made by the

¶55

WP 8050/15

¶56

parties. On receipt of the same, the Education Officer
shall decide the said proposal expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of
appearance of the petitioner before him. The writ
petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶57

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

¶58

ndk/ c19101621.doc

Sunil Annasaheb Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Annasaheb Pawar 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

State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Vishal Apasing Pawara

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

Devidas Govindrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others