Dismissed

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar v. Samaj Seva Mitra Mandal Karmala and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2017WP/2176/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the School Tribunal order upholding the promotion of the third respondent as Headmaster. The Court held that the third respondent was senior under Schedule F rules, dismissing the challenge to the Tribunal's decision. An ancillary civil application was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order was dismissed; the impugned order upholding the third respondent's promotion stands approved.

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar Vs Samaj Seva… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

6.WP.2176-16.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition NO. 2176 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar Versus

¶6

Samaj Seva Mitra Mandal Karmala And Ors.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

With Civil Application No.219 of 2017 In Writ Petition NO. 2176 OF 2016

¶10

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar i/b. M.G. Bagkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.P. Rajepandhare i/b. Ajay A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.2 and 4. Mr.P.B. Shah a/w. Y.G. Thorat i/b. A.B. Tajane, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶11

Mr. Rahul Kadam, Advocate for intervenors in CAW/219/2017.

¶12

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 11^th JULY, 2017

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the

¶16

petitioner, Mr.S.P. Rajepandhare, learned Counsel for

¶17

respondent No.1, Ms.Jyoti Jadhav, learned A.G.P. for

¶18

respondents No.2 & 4, Mr. P.B. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.Rahul Kadam, learned Counsel for the

¶19

intervenors, at length.

1 / 5

6.WP.2176-16.doc

By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur (for short, ''Tribunal') in Appeal No.14/2012. By that order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the resolution dated 30.8.2011 passed by respondent No.1 promoting respondent No.3 as Headmaster w.e.f. 1.8.2009.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that by appointment letter dated 31.8.1986, the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Teacher w.e.f. 1.9.1986. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 20.7.1989. Thus the petitioner is senior to third respondent. Respondent No.1 had prepared seniority list in the year 1999-2000. In that seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.14 and third respondent was shown at Sr. No.18. In the seniority list of the year 2006-07, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.12 and third respondent was shown at Sr. No.16. Respondent No.3 did not raise objections to the seniority lists of the years 1999-2000 and 2006-07.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that Shri N.G. Bobe, who

2 / 5

6.WP.2176-16.doc

was working as Headmaster retired on 31.5.2006. Respondent No.1 wanted to appoint one Mr. Ramesh Kavade as Headmaster and obtained no objection letters from 22 teachers. Ramesh Kavade was promoted as Headmaster and third respondent was promoted as Assistant Headmaster on 10.5.2007.

¶30

Mr. Bandiwadekar submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 was promoted as Assistant Headmaster on 10.5.2007 and, therefore, fell in the category “B” and the petitioner is in the category “C”. Respondent No.3, being senior to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was justified in appointing him on the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 1.8.1989. Mr. Bandiwadekar relied upon Rules 3, 12 and Schedule F to contend that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the third respondent was senior to the petitioner.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that the third respondent is senior to the petitioner.

¶32

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by

3 / 5

6.WP.2176-16.doc

learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.3 was appointed on the post of Assistant Headmaster on 10.5.2007. Category “B” of Schedule F reads thus :

¶37

“Category B: Heads of secondary schools having an enrolment of students of 500 and below, Principals of Junior Colleges of Education having four or less Divisions and Assistant Heads of Secondary schools having more than 20 classes on the basis of the dates of their appointments to the respective posts.”

¶38

As against this the petitioner being Trained Graduate

¶39

Teacher falls in the category “C”. In view thereof, it has to be held that the third respondent was senior to the petitioner and accordingly was promoted on the post of Headmaster.

¶40

Apart from this, the petitioner had instituted W.P. No.2177/2016 challenging the order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal dismissing his appeal No.16/2012. The petitioner had filed that appeal challenging promotion of respondent No.3 is Assistant Headmaster w.e.f. 10.5.2007 on the ground that he

¶41

is senior to respondent No.3. While dismissing that Petition on 20.6.2017, it was held that the petitioner cannot claim to be

4 / 5

6.WP.2176-16.doc

senior to respondent No.3. For the reasons recorded in that order also, it cannot be said that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.3. I, therefore, do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in dismissing the appeal. Hence, the Petition fails and the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, Civil Application No.219/2017 for intervention does not survive and is disposed of. Order accordingly.

¶46

Deshmane (PS)

¶47

5 / 5

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar v. Samaj Seva Mitra Mandal Karmala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar v. Samaj Seva Mitra Mandal Karmala and Ors.

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

Rakesh K Sharma and Anr. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. and 6 Ors.

Shri. Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Karmala Taluka Sahakari Va Khajagi Sakhar Karkhana Kamgar Sanghathana (Intak) and Ors.

Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking and Anr. Vs Waman Shidva Dhinda

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar Vs Samaj Seva Mitra Mandal Karmala and Ors.

Dr. Suswir Jaidao Dahiwale Vs the Secretary, Vidya Prasarak Mandals Arts, Science and Commerce College, Kinhavali and Ors.

Aruna J Agarwal and 2 Others Vs M/S Samta Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others