Disposed

Ramdas Janardan Patil v. the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017WP/9585/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning employment and salary arrears for a helper who lost his job due to an illegal government action set aside by an Aurangabad Bench, the Bombay Bench directed the authorities to absorb the petitioner in a nearby school within Western Maharashtra within two weeks and grant salary arrears within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be absorbed in a school in Western Maharashtra within two weeks; to be paid salary arrears within four weeks; Writ Petition disposed.

Ramdas Janardan Patil Vs the Principal, Sambhajirao… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

vikrant 1/6 8-WP-9585-2016.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9585 OF 2016

¶4

Ramdas Janardan Patil … Petitioner Vs. The Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary), Solapur and Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. I. M. Khairdi for the Petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Mrs. S. V. Bharucha a/w Mr. M. S.Bharadwaj i/by Mr. A. A. Ansari for Respondent No.6.

¶6

Mr. Satyan Sonawane, Education Officer (Secondary), Solapur, present.

¶7

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶8

SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2017.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

¶12

A) This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue writ, mandamus and/or any other Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby pleased to direct the Respondent No.3, to recall its order 14.1.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 and further call for the records and proceedings from the Respondent No.3 and after perusal and examination thereof.

¶13

B) This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue writ, certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction in

¶14

vikrant 2/6 8-WP-9585-2016.odt

¶15

the nature of certiorari and thereby pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated 14.1.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3.

¶16

On such a Petition, after both sides were fully heard, we had passed an order. That order dated 20^th November, 2017 reads as under:

¶17

“1. Mr. Khairdi, during the course of the arguments, refers to a decision of Aurangabad Bench of this court dated 25^th August, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2016 and submits that this order expressly refers to the Government communication dated 7^th July, 2015. Mr. Khairdi mentions that on 5^th January, 2017 and subsequently on 21^st January, 2017, the Director of Education (Primary), Maharashtra State has directed that in pursuance of this judgment, all the orders and on the lines impugned in the present writ petition in relation to 72 helpers are now quashed and set aside. They are reinstated back in service.

¶18

2. We take these two documents on record and mark them as “X” collectively for identification.

¶19

3. Presently, Mr. Samant-AGP has no instructions. We direct the Department of School Education, Government of Maharashtra and the Director of Education (Primary), Maharashtra State, Pune to depute a competent official to remain present in this court with the original record so that Mr. Samant can effectively assist us.

¶20

4. We place these matters under caption “for passing orders” on 29^th November, 2017.”

¶21

Since that order demanded production of complete records and the attendance of a competent official, we gave ample opportunities to the respondents to do the needful.

¶22

vikrant 3/6 8-WP-9585-2016.odt

¶23

On 29^th November, 2017, we expressed our displeasure by passing a further order.

¶24

Today this matter was placed because on earlier two occasions, namely 29^th November, 2017 and 5^th December, 2017, the concerned Education Officer was absent.

¶25

Mr. Samant was directed to take specific instructions, particularly whether any nearby school or any school of the nature mentioned in the Petition in the nearby District can be approached and the information sought by the Department of Education from such school about absorption of the petitioner in the services thereof.

¶26

Today when this matter was called out, we are surprised that Mr. Samant was told to make a statement that despite an authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2016 decided on 25^th August, 2016, no orders have been issued with regard to the respondent no.1-school. In the sense, as far as the teachers and the helpers in the 1^st respondent school, who were rendered jobless, necessary orders in terms of the directions of the Division Bench could not be issued. There is no reason forthcoming as to why, despite the Department of Primary Education, Government of Maharashtra clarifying and directing by a circular/order dated 21^st January, 2017 to implement the judgment of the Division

¶27

vikrant 4/6 8-WP-9585-2016.odt

¶28

Bench in its entirety, such an order has not been issued in the case of the 1^st respondent. On repeated questioning and in the presence of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, it is stated by Mr. Samant that this officer is not in-charge of Primary Education. Secondly, he does not come from the Directorate of Primary Education, but that Directorate has deputed him to attend the Court and make appropriate statements. Naturally, this gentleman has walked into the Court without any original records or proper instructions, but goes on making vague statements after Mr. Samant poses him any questions and queries in our presence. Finally, he says that he has understood that necessary orders in relation to the parties like the petitioner employed by the 1^st respondent-school would have to be issued, and within a period of one week from today they would be issued. We accept this statement made by this officer as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶29

On the own showing of this Officer, this does not solve the problem of the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as a helper and is one of those 72 helpers who were rendered jobless because of the orders passed by the Department of Education and which eventually came to be set aside by the Division Bench at Aurangabad. He today has no job and he cannot ensure restarting of the 1^st respondent-school even if the approvals to the appointments made by the said school are restored. If there are no students, if there is no infrastructure, then in the mid-term, we do

¶30

vikrant 5/6 8-WP-9585-2016.odt

¶31

not expect that school to take steps even if it is directed by the Department and particularly of making payment of arrears of salary, salary and other perquisites. It is entirely because of the State Government's creation that 1185 teachers and 72 helpers in these schools styled as Special Schools have been rendered unemployed and jobless. Once the Government's action is responsible and results into unemployment, we expect the Government to compensate the persons like the petitioner who are aggrieved by their wrongful act. They are the sufferers and they could not have been made to run from pillar to post, much less to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, we direct that unless and until all steps pursuant to the order of the Division Bench are taken, the other respondents, including the State authorities, to ensure that the petitioner is absorbed not only in a special school in a nearby District, but if that is not possible, he should be employed by treating him as a surplus candidate in any other secondary school either in the vicinity or in the nearby District.

¶32

It is stated on oral instructions that such schools are not functioning or not available for employing the petitioner in Solapur, Pune and Ahmednagar Districts of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is residing at Tirhegaon, Solapur. Surely, the petitioner cannot travel the whole State for being employed again and because of a wrongful and illegal act of the State Government by which he is rendered jobless. Hence, we

¶33

vikrant 6/6 8-WP-9585-2016.odt

¶34

direct that the petitioner should be absorbed in any school in the remaining Districts of the Western Maharashtra only. He should not be made to travel beyond Western Maharashtra. Such orders in this case be passed as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of with these directions as the main controversy is covered by the Division Bench judgment rendered at Aurangabad. Needless to clarify that the petitioner will be entitled to arrears of salary and necessary directions be issued in that behalf as well within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the other statutory authorities.

¶35

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Ramdas Janardan Patil v. the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas Janardan Patil v. the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) 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 Tradelink Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Tulip Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

M P Beer Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sabmiller India Limited

Deepa Dharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Saroj Wd/O Satish Sunderrao Trasikar and 3 Ors.

Ramdas Janardan Patil Vs the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and Ors.

Siddharth Kiritbhai Shah Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Litesh Navnitrai Bhuta and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.