Allowed

Shri Anup Ambadas Charpe v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC6 Jun 2018PIL/83/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher had approval withdrawn after three years due to roster discrepancies. Court found withdrawal harsh and unsustainable, quashing the order and restoring the appointment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; approval to petitioner's appointment restored as it stands.

What the court decided

Shri Anup Ambadas Charpe Vs State of Maha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 pil83.2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 83/2017

¶4

Shri Anup Ambadas Charpe ..VS..

¶5

State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

- - - - Shri A.S.Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. GP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 and 5

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 06/06/2018

¶11

1] The petitioner has been recruited after due permission and advertisement. He completed three years of service as Shikshan Sevak and as the completion is satisfactory, he has been made an Assistant Teacher. This appointment as Assistant Teacher has also been approved by Education Officer.

¶12

2] By impugned order dated 01/07/2017, respondent no. 2/Deputy Director of Education has withdrawn that approval.

¶13

3] Effort of learned advocate for the petitioner is to urge that the petitioner has been recruited at Sr. No. 33 and one post out of remaining four vacant posts i.e. roster point nos. 34 to 37 is found to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe by Deputy Director.

¶14

2 pil83.2017

¶15

4] Learned Addl. GP is relying upon reply affidavit. He submits that the sanctioned strength of teachers was only 35 and the management of petitioner erroneously reflected the same to be 37. Hence there was wrong application of mind by Additional Commissioner (Backward Cell) which has resulted in wrong application of roster.

¶16

5] Respondent nos. 4 and 5 have filed their reply. They submit that post at Sr. No. 18 had became vacant and that roster point is for open category.

¶17

6] The defence of respondent no. 2 itself shows total non-application of mind. If alleged unsanctioned posts were shown while obtaining roster approval, how it affects roster application has not been demonstrated. The management has come up with express case that post at Sr. No. 18 became vacant and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been filled in through very same category. We need not comment on this. The respondent no. 2 does not come up with a defence that if two posts are reduced and sanctioned strength is brought down to 35, the post on which the petitioner is recruited falls on roster point which is reserved for any backward class. On the contrary, the respondent no. 2 accepts that even in that case, the post remains open.

¶18

7] We therefore find the impugned order unsustainable. Having given approval to the advertisement and thereafter to the appointment, such orders throw an incumbent out of employment after he has put in three or four years of service. This therefore is a very harsh exercise. If respondent no. 2 found respondent no. 3/Education Officer at fault, Respondent no. 2 who ought to have taken action

¶19

3 pil83.2017

¶20

against the Education Officer and directed recovery from said Education Officer. That has not been done however in the present facts, we find that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 itself unsustainable. We accordingly quash and set aside the same. We restore approval given to appointment of the petitioner.

¶21

8] PIL is accordingly allowed. Respondent no. 2 shall personally pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) to the petitioner.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

Ansari

Shri Anup Ambadas Charpe v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shri Anup Ambadas Charpe v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Education and Sports, Mumbai 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

Sardar Jagdeepsingh Namberdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Manikrao Naik and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

Pravin Rangnath Shirke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Bhaurao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Ganpat Jotiba Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal Sinchan Bhawan through Executive Engineer Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector and 4 Others

Sanjay Hiraman Chalakh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Executive Officer, Gadchiroli

Anupkumar Paisadely Vs Government of India through General Manager South East Central Railway, Kolkata and Others

Nagari Hakka Saurakshan Manch, Thr. Central President, Shri Janardan Gulabrao Moon, Nagpur Vs the State of Maha., Department of General Administration Department, Mumbai and Others

Aai Saraswati Bahu-Uddeshiya Mahila Vikas Sanstha, Pulgaon Thr. Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai and Others

Pankaj S/O Leeladhar @ Lalitji Meshram Vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and Others