Allowed

Shr. Chandane Kishor Digambar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra , through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2017WP/8532/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed writ petitions challenging denial of approval for Shikshan Sevak appointments. Quashing orders that refused approval based on a recruitment ban, the court directed Education Officers to examine cases and grant approval if recruitment commenced before the ban or for specific subjects.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed. Education Officers directed to decide cases and grant approval within six weeks and pay salaries within 12 weeks.

Shr. Chandane Kishor Digambar and Anr. Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp-8532-17.doc

¶2

Ladda(PS).

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 8532 of 2017

¶5

Chandane Kishor Digambar & Anr.. ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. ..Respondents.

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 8527 of 2017

¶8

Kolawale Santosh Shamrao & Anr.. ..Petitioners. Vs

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. ..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate a/with Mr. Sagar A. Mane, Advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mrs. R.M. Shinde, A.G.P. for the State.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 23^rd August, 2017

¶12

FINAL ORDER :-

¶13

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

¶14

In the above two petitions, the petitioners have challenged the

¶15

order/communication of the Education Officer, thereby refusing

¶16

approval to the appointment of the petitioners. The grievance of the

¶17

1 /6

¶18

wp-8532-17.doc

¶19

petitioners in the above 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 made by the Management were termed as illegal. By the said Government Resolution the State has imposed a ban on the post of recruitment of assistant teachers until such time of hundred per cent 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.

¶20

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

¶21

2 /6

¶22

wp-8532-17.doc

¶23

of Government Resolution dated 2^nd May, 2012. Similar issue was raised before this Hon'ble Court in a bunch of connected writ petitions 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 petitions 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 :-

¶24

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 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.

¶25

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

¶26

3 /6

¶27

wp-8532-17.doc

¶28

concerned and third, where the recruitment is made to fulfill the backlog of reserved category candidates.

¶29

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.

¶30

In the result, the said Division Bench was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order and directed to the Respondents – Education Officers to examine independent cases and grant approval to each of the teachers who fall in the following three categories:-

¶31

(a) Where the recruitment process is already commenced prior to GR dated 2nd May 2012; (b) where the appointments made for filling up vacancies in English, Mathematics and Science;

4 /6

wp-8532-17.doc

The said Division Bench also observed that upon grant of

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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:-

¶39

ORDER.

¶40

Both the Writ Petitions are

¶41

allowed and impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents-Education officers are directed to decide the case of the petitioners by affording opportunity of hearing

¶42

to the Management and the Petitioners within

¶43

5 /6

¶44

wp-8532-17.doc

¶45

a period of six weeks and the Education Officer 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 fulfill the backlog of reserved categories candidates . 2) 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. All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶46

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

¶47

6 /6

Shr. Chandane Kishor Digambar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra , through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shr. Chandane Kishor Digambar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra , through the 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

Shobha Bira Jankar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its School Education Department and 4 Ors.

Ramanand Rampal Yadav Vs the Dy. Director of Education and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Vaishali Rama Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs. Sujata Dipak Bangal Vs Balmohan Vidhyamamdir and Ors.

Shri. Kolawale Santosh Shamrao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Its Secretary and Anr.

Nafisa Rajahmad Hunchalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.