Allowed

Shri. Swapnil Dattatray Hivrekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2017WP/6755/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench allowed multiple writ petitions challenging the refusal of approval to appoint petitioners as Shikshan Sevaks due to a recruitment ban. Relying on a recent Division Bench decision relaxing the ban for specific subjects and conditions, the court quashed the rejection orders and directed the Education Officers to afford a hearing and decide eligibility within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed; Education Officers directed to examine eligibility within six weeks and grant approval where applicable; salary to be paid within twelve weeks.

Shri. Swapnil Dattatray Hivrekar Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

(1) WRIT PETITION No. 11090 of 2016

Swati Bhausaheb Aher

..Petitioner.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶8

.. ..Respondents.

¶9

ALONG WITH

¶10

(2) WRIT PETITION No. 6755 of 2016

¶11

Shri Swapnil Datatray Hivrekar .. ..Petitioner. Vs

¶12

The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents.

¶13

ALONG WITH

¶14

(3) WRIT PETITION No. 10495 of 2016

¶15

Shri Kiran Ramdas Laygude .. ..Petitioner. Vs

¶16

The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents.

¶17

ALONG WITH

¶18

(4) WRIT PETITION No. 10818 of 2016

¶19

Shri Sanket Ravindrarao Kulkarni

¶20

.. ..Petitioner.

¶21

¶22

The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents.

¶23

ALONG WITH

¶24

(5) WRIT PETITION No. 10821 of 2016

¶25

Reshma Narayan Nigade

¶26

..Petitioner

¶27

¶28

The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents.

¶29

1 /11

¶30

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶31

ALONG WITH

¶32

(6) WRIT PETITION No. 10827 of 2016

¶33

Gauri Vitthal Katkar

¶34

.. ..Petitioner.

¶35

Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents.

¶36

ALONG WITH (7) WRIT PETITION No. 11061 of 2016

¶37

Dipali Chandrakant Chavan .. ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents. ALONG WITH (8) WRIT PETITION No. 11065 of 2016 Yogesh Khandu Gadhave .. ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents. ALONG WITH (9) WRIT PETITION No. 11066 of 2016 Sapna Hiraman Jadhav .. ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. ..Respondents. ALONG WITH (10) WRIT PETITION No. 11071 of 2016 Priya Kisan Pawar .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents.

¶38

ALONG WITH (11) WRIT PETITION NO.11072 OF 2016

¶39

Vijaya Shivajirao Gaikwad .. Petitioner.

¶40

2 /11

¶41

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶42

Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents.

¶43

ALONG WITH (12) WRIT PETITION No. 11073 of 2016 Vaibhav Goraksha Deshmukh .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. ALONG WITH (13) WRIT PETITION No. 11076 of 2016 Supriya Sudhir Chavan .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. ALONG WITH (14) WRIT PETITION No. 11077 of 2016 Monika Laxman Walkunde .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. ALONG WITH (15) WRIT PETITION No. 11078 of 2016 Dhanshree Rajendra Dhumal .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. ALONG WITH (16) WRIT PETITION No. 11080 of 2016 Megha Mahesh Kulkarni .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. ALONG WITH (17) WRIT PETITION No. 11082 of 2016

¶44

3 /11

¶45

spb 38-wp	-11090-1	6 with group
Pooja DeepakShrigadi Vs	..	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors	..	Respondents.
ALONG WITH (18) WRIT PETITION No.	11084	of 2016
Manda Jeevan Vasave Vs	..	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors	..	Respondents.
ALONG WITH (19) WRIT PETITION No.	11085	of 2016
Vrushali Nivrutti Belhekar Vs	..	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors	..	Respondents.
ALONG WITH (20) WRIT PETITION No.	11087	of 2016
Ranvir Vishwanath Kamble Vs	..	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors	..	Respondents.
ALONG WITH (21) WRIT PETITION No.	11088	of 2016
Archana Yadav Shinde Vs	..	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors	..	Respondents.
ALONG WITH (22) WRIT PETITION No.	11089	of 2016
Vijaya Mahadev Maske Vs	..	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors	..	Respondents.

¶46

4 /11

¶47

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶48

ALONG WITH

¶49

(23) WRIT PETITION No. 11691 of 2016

¶50

Pramod Dashrath Raut .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents.

¶51

ALONG WITH (24) WRIT PETITION No. 11693 of 2016

¶52

Swati Shivdas Waghmare .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents.

¶53

AND ALONG WITH (25) WRIT PETITION No. 14185 of 2016 Ashutosh Ashok Salunkhe .. Petitioner. Vs The Education Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri & Ors .. Respondents.

¶54

Mr. S. S. Pakale with Ms. Manisha Deokar i/by Mr. S.M. Katkar for the petitioners in all matters.

¶55

Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for State in Writ Petition Nos. 11090/16, 6755/16, 10495/16, 10818/16, 10821/16 and 10827/16.

¶56

Mr. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State in Writ Petition Nos.11061/16, 11065/16, 11066/16, 11071/16 to 11073/16, 11076/16 to 11078/16.

¶57

Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State in Writ Petition Nos.11080/16, 11082/16, 11084/16, 11085/16, 11087/16, 11088/16, 11089/16, 11691/16 and 11693/16.

¶58

Mr.Tushar Rajmane i/by Ashok Sitaram Pandire for Respondents 2 & 4 in Writ Petition No.14185/16.

¶59

5 /11

¶60

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶61

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.

¶62

DATE : 18^th September, 2017

¶63

FINAL ORDER :-

¶64

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶65

In the above group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order/communication of the Education Officer, thereby refusing approval to the appointment of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that they were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks after following due procedure and on ascertainment of their qualifications and the appointments were for a period of three years on monthly fixed salary. Thereafter, the petitioners proposals were forwarded to the Education Officer for grant of approval along with necessary documents. The proposals for approval were pending for considerable time with the Education Officer who ultimately rejected the approval in view of the Government Resolution dated 2^nd May, 2012 by which the State had imposed a ban on recruitment of teachers and as such appointment

¶66

made by the Management were termed as illegal. By the said Government Resolution the State has imposed a ban on the post of

¶67

6 /11

¶68

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶69

recruitment of assistant teachers until such time of hundred per cent

¶70

absorption of surplus teachers. However, subsequently on 4^th September, 2013 the ban has been relaxed by the State Government in relation to subject of English, Mathematics and Science.

¶71

The petitioners have challenged the rejection and/or refusal of approval on the said ground contending that they were qualified for the post of Shikshan Sevaks and the approval has been refused only on the ground that the appointments have been made after issuance of Government Resolution dated 2^nd May, 2012. Similar issue was raised before this Hon'ble Court in a bunch of connected writ petitions were dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B.R.Gavai & Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ) on 10^th July, 2017 was pleased to allow the writ petition and has quashed and set aside the impugned order after referring the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 10580 of 2015 with W.P. No. 1145 of 2016 decided on 9^th March, 2017. The paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced below for ready reference :-

¶72

We find that if the Education Officers do not send the surplus teachers within reasonable time, the schools can not be expected to run without teachers for years together. Undisputedly, finding it difficult

¶73

7 /11

¶74

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶75

to send surplus teachers for the subjects of English, Maths and Science, the State Government itself has relaxed the rigour of government resolution dated 2nd May 2012 vide GR dated 4th September 2013. It could further be seen that State Government also vide that GR relaxed the ban where the selection process has already commenced on 6th September 2012.

¶76

In that view of the matter, we find that in view of subsequent GRs and in view of the view taken by Division Bench of this Court, the ban would not be applicable to three Writ Petition No. 10580 of 2015 with 1145 of 2016 decided on 9th March 2017. categories, one where the recruitment process is already commenced prior to GR dated 2nd May 2012, second, in so far as the appointment made for the subjects of English, Maths and Science are concerned and third, where the recruitment is made to fulfill the backlog of reserved category candidates.

¶77

We find that at the same time the State should take into consideration, that such situations arise on account of inaction of its own Education Officers. If Education Officers act promptly and ensure that the surplus teachers are absorbed in the schools wherever there is a vacancy, such a situation would not arise. However, as already observed hereinabove on account of inaction on the part of Education Officers, right which has become fundamental, in view of amendment to the constitution by which Article 21A brought in the Constitution, cannot be permitted to be frustrated. The schools are not expected to run without teachers for years together. The State would always be at liberty to take appropriate action against its officers, on account of who's inaction the State exchequer will be burdened.

¶78

In the result, the said Division Bench was pleased to

¶79

¶80

8 /11

¶81

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶82

quash and set aside the impugned order and directed to the Respondents – Education Officers to examine independent cases and

¶83

grant approval to each of the teachers who fall in the following three categories:-

¶84

(a) Where the recruitment process is already

¶85

commenced prior to GR dated 2nd May 2012;

¶86

(b) where the appointments made for filling

¶87

up vacancies in English, Mathematics and Science;

¶88

¶89

The necessary orders after hearing the management and teachers be passed within a

¶90

period of six weeks from today.

¶91

The said Division Bench also observed that upon grant of

¶92

approval necessary steps would be taken for paying salary to such teachers who are found eligible and salaries would be paid to them within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order.

¶93

It was also directed that necessary orders after hearing the management and teachers be passed within a period of six weeks from

¶94

9 /11

¶95

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶96

today.

¶97

The issue involved in the present writ petitions is clearly governed by the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 8587 of 2016 and other connected matters decided on 10^th July, 2017. Hence, the following order:-

¶98

ORDER

¶99

The Writ Petitions are allowed and

¶100

impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶101

The Respondents-Education officers are directed to decide the case of the petitioners by affording opportunity of hearing to the Management and the Petitioners within a period of six weeks and the Education Officer

¶102

who will examine as to whether the recruitment process is commenced prior to GR dated 2^nd May, 2012 and whether the appointments were made for filling up vacancies in English,Mathematics and Science and also whether the recruitment is made to

¶103

fulfill the backlog of reserved categories

¶104

10 /11

¶105

spb 38-wp-11090-16 with group

¶106

candidates .

¶107

Upon grant of approval necessary steps would be taken for payment of salary to the petitioners who are found eligible and the salary would be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.

¶108

Rule made absolute accordingly. 4) All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶109

(SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE,J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J)

¶110

11 /11

Shri. Swapnil Dattatray Hivrekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Swapnil Dattatray Hivrekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco)

M/S. Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco)

M/S. Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco)

Ashutosh Ashok Salunkhe Vs the Education Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri and Ors.

Chetan S/O. Diliprao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Ramnath Bhau Ide Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.