Disposed

Headmaster Shri Raghuvir Secondary and Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Chamarga through D T Mule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Sept 2017WP/3654/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses two writ petitions regarding the petitioner's appointment and salary recovery. The High Court held that the genuineness of the appointment approval cannot be tested under writ jurisdiction. It directed the Deputy Director of Education to examine the records and decide the petitioner's status afresh, directing a stay on salary recovery pending the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Deputy Director of Education to decide the petitioner's status afresh after examining records; stay on recovery of salary pending the decision.

Headmaster Shri Raghuvir Secondary and Higher… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 wp 3674.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3674 OF 2016

¶4

Suryakant Daulatrao Patil .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri Y. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. W. Mundhe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S. V. Warad, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Shri R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate with Shri P. M. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 3654 OF 2016

¶10

Head Master Shri Raghuvir Secondary and Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Chamarga through D. T. Mule .. Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶13

Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. W. Mundhe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S. V. Warad, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Shri R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate with Shri P. M. Nagargoje, Advocates for the Respondent No. 5.

¶14

2 wp 3674.16

¶15

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONWANE, JJ. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

¶16

FINAL ORDER :

¶17

. In Writ Petition No. 3674 of 2016 order dated 10th March, 2016 passed by the Education Officer is assailed, wherein it is held that no proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3674 of 2016 was received by his office and the salary was paid by misleading. The directions were given to recover the salary and if salary is not recovered, then the same be deducted from the salary of the Head Master.

¶18

According to Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3674 of 2016, the petitioner is working since 1996 and subsequently in the year 2012 the post became vacant. The petitioner is appointed on the post that became vacant as junior clerk and his appointment was approved pursuant to the order of the Education Officer dated 29.05.2012.

¶19

Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel further submits that, the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioner and without hearing him. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner was issued with appointment order on the basis of resolution dated 02.06.1998 sent by the then President Hanmantrao Patil.

¶20

3 wp 3674.16

¶21

Mr. Godbole and Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for contesting respondent submit that, the Education Officer has passed the order impugned in the petition after hearing all the parties. Even the petitioner has signed the proceedings of hearing. In the year 1996 when the petitioner claimed to have been appointed, no post for junior clerk was vacant, as the said post was already held by a person namely Murgande since 1988. The learned counsel submit that, in the year 2012 also no advertisement was ever issued. Even no proposal was submitted by the Head Master seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The Head Master in his own hand writing gave such a letter. Now the Head Master is taking a somersault. No procedure at any point of time was followed.

¶22

Mr. Ashtekar, the learned counsel appears for the Head Master and supports the arguments of Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

The parties are debating about the status of the President and Secretary, so also raising rival contentions. The record will have to be perused and then the decision is required to be taken.

¶24

It appears that, the Education Officer had conducted the hearing and in the proceedings dated 11.01.2016 the signature of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3674 of 2016 appears.

¶25

4 wp 3674.16

¶26

To test the genuineness of the submissions made, the record will have to be gone into. The said exercise would not be possible under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶27

Considering the above, we direct the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur to consider the record that would be placed before it by the respective parties and consider the genuineness of the approval so granted in favour of the petitioner on 29.05.2012, the appointment orders as claimed by the petitioners, the adherence to the procedure and all the relevant aspects and take decision afresh with regard to the status of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3674 of 2016.

¶28

The parties may appear before the Deputy Director of Education Latur on 03rd October, 2017. The Deputy Director of Education shall decide the same within a period of two (02) months from the date of appearance.

¶29

Till the same is decided by the Deputy Director of Education, recovery may not be claimed as directed in the impugned order. The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶30

[K. K. SONWANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶31

bsb/Sept. 17

Headmaster Shri Raghuvir Secondary and Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Chamarga through D T Mule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Headmaster Shri Raghuvir Secondary and Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Chamarga through D T Mule 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surekha Dilip Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shushrusha Heart Care Centre and Specialty Centre, Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S v.M.Matere Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vishnu Mahadev Matere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayabai Narayan Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suryakant Daulatrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagdishkumar Naval Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others