Allowed

Shri. Naik Dattatraya Maruti and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2018WP/120/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of the Education Officer to approve a teacher's appointment. The court held the appointment valid as it fell within an exception to the recruitment ban. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to receive salary arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26/12/2017 quashed; approval to appointment granted; salary arrears and regular salary directed to be paid.

Shri. Naik Dattatraya Maruti and Anr. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(977)WP120-18.doc

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 120 0F 2018

¶5

Shri Naik Dattatraya Maruti & Anr.

¶6

….Petitioners.

¶7

V/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ….. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. S.A. Mane, I/b Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶11

M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 11^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)

¶14

1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

¶15

2] By way of the above Petition, Petitioner No.1 who is a teacher

¶16

has approached this Court alongwith Petitioner No.2 – Shri Ambabai Talim Sanstha being aggrieved by refusal by the Respondent – Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner

¶17

1/3

¶18

(977)WP120-18.doc

¶19

No.1. The Petitioner No.1 has not been granted approval on the ground that in view of Government Resolution dated 02/05/2012, there was a ban on recruitment of teachers and as such, appointments made by the management are illegal.

¶20

3] Mr. Kalel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has vehemently opposed the Petition.

¶21

4] The issue is no more res integra . The Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016 with connected Writ Petitions vide its judgment dated 10^th July, 2017 has observed in para 7 as under:-

¶22

“7. 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 categories, one where the recruitment process is already commenced prior to GR dated 2^nd 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 fulfil the backlog of reserved

¶23

2/3

¶24

(977)WP120-18.doc

¶25

category candidates.”

¶26

5] Undisputedly, Petitioner No.1 who belongs to VJ-A category is appointed as Shikshan Sevak with effect from 01/07/2013 and as such, he is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, cited supra.

¶27

6] In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/12/2017 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 from the date of his appointment i.e. 01/07/2013 as a Shikshan Sevak for three years and thereafter as Assistant Teacher and to pay Petitioner No.1 his regular salary from the month of November, 2018 and all arrears of salary from the date of appointment of Petitioner No.1 till October, 2018 shall be cleared within a period of three months from today.

¶28

7] Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶29

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶30

3/3

Shri. Naik Dattatraya Maruti and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Naik Dattatraya Maruti and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

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

Shivas Autocomp Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Manav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authhority and 4 Others

Santosh Shankerappa Umarani Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bhavya Sinha Vs Shri Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal and 2 Ors.

Shri. Pawar Sharad Baburao Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Ors.

Sou. Patil Sarika Narendra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.