Quashed

Ram Gopinathrao Yedte and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2017WP/501/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order refusing approval of appointments to petitioners who were acquitted in related criminal proceedings. The court directed the Education Officer to re-examine the proposal for regularization within three months according to relevant rules.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 15th December, 2006 refusing approval was quashed; the Education Officer is directed to approve appointments if eligible and not repeat previous refusal reasons within three mo

Ram Gopinathrao Yedte and Anr. Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2007

¶3

1. Ram s/o Gopinathrao Yedte Age : 41 years, Occu.: Service, R/o at Post Gokul Gondegaon, Tq. Mahur, District – Nanded

¶4

2. Kailash s/o Dattatraya Thakare, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Service, R/o at Post Gokul Gondegaon, Tq. Mahur, District – Nanded ..PETITIONERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶7

2. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded

¶8

3. Shri Subhash Shikshan Sanstha Gokul (Gondegaon) Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded Through it's Secretary,

¶9

4. Shri Subhash Vidyalaya Gokul (Gondegaon), Tq. Mahur, District – Nanded Through it's Head Master .. RESPONDENTS ----

¶10

Mr. S.R. Kolhare, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. D.A. Karnik, advocate holding for Mr.Vivek Dhage, advocate for the applicant-intervenor ----

¶11

¶12

wp501-2007

¶13

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2017

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
heard finally.

¶17

2.Both petitioners claim to possess requisite
qualifications to hold onto the posts on which they are

¶18

appointed pursuant to the Maharashtra Employees of
Private School (Condition of Service) Regulation Act,
1977 and the Rules of 1981 framed thereunder.

¶19

advertisement dated 13th October, 2002, published by

¶20

respondents No.3 and 4, they had applied to the posts of
Shikshan Sevak for being appointed in respondent No.4 –

¶21

School, run by respondent No.3 – Institution. The
petitioners, in pursuance of the same, were appointed as
Shikshan Sevaks in their respective posts, which,

¶22

according to the petitioners, are permanent and
sanctioned. It is further claimed that the Education

¶23

Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded had also
accorded approval to their appointments for a period of

¶24

3 wp501-2007

¶25

three years, vide orders dated 31st December, 2012 and
23rd January, 2003, respectively. On completion of three
years, their appointments were upgraded to Assistant
Teachers with effect from 21stOctober, 2002 and
proposals were forwarded to Education Officer for grant
of approval to their such appointments.

¶26

4.It appears that around March, 2005, one
Punjabrao Gawande had lodged a criminal complaint, on
the basis of which Regular Criminal Case No. 344 of 2005
was instituted. In the circumstances, the request and
the proposal for grant of approval to the petitioners'
appointments as Assistant Teachers had been found
difficult to be acceded to by the Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded and he purported to
refuse the same under communication dated 15th December,
2006, addressed to respondent No. 4 (Exh-B to the
petition, page No.17).

¶27

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the
course of hearing of the matter, referred that the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners
have ended up in their acquittal and as such, there is

¶28

no impediment now for grant of approval to the
appointments of the petitioners, for the reason for

¶29

wp501-2007

¶30

¶31

which it had been earlier refused, is not subsisting.

¶32

The learned counsel further refers to the fact that
services of the petitioners have been protected under
interim orders of this Court.

¶33

6.Having regard to aforesaid, it would be

¶34

expedient that respondent No.2 considers the proposal
for approval to the appointments of the petitioners
afresh.

¶35

7.Inviewofaforesaid,theimpugned

¶36

communication dated 15th December, 2006 (Exh-B to the
petition), issued by respondent No. 2 – Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded stands
quashed and set aside.

¶37

8.RespondentNo.2-EducationOfficer

¶38

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded shall go ahead and
consider the proposal afresh in accordance with law and

¶39

as per the relevant Rules for approval to the
appointments of the petitioners, if they are eligible
and shall not refuse granting of approval for the reason
for which it was refused earlier. It is expected that

¶40

further action by respondent No. 2 would be taken
expeditiously and preferably within a period of three

¶41

wp501-2007

¶42

¶43

months.

¶44

9.Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶45

10.The Writ Petition stands disposed of

¶46

accordingly.

¶47

11.In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil
application No. 9821 of 2007 (for intervention) and
civil application No.13460 of 2013 (for early hearing of
the writ petition), do not survive and stand disposed
of.

¶48

npj/wp501-2007

Ram Gopinathrao Yedte and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gopinathrao Yedte and Anr. v. the State of Mah 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

Vijay Sadashiv Sonar and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Ramesh Hiralal Gujar and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Kailas Bhaskar Dusane and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Sukhdeo Jagannath Amte Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nandbodhi Magasvargiya Sahakari Grahak Sanstha Vs Shaikh Salimoddin Sk Shamshoddin and Anr.

Vijay Waman Chahakar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.