Allowed

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

Bombay HC11 Oct 2018WP/122/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A teacher petitioned for confirmation of his Shikshan Sevak appointment made in 2012, which was rejected based on a recruitment ban. The High Court held that his Scheduled Tribe status and appointment date fell under exceptions to the ban.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; appointment approved as Shikshan Sevak for three years, with confirmation as Assistant Teacher thereafter and payment of arrears from 2018.

Shri. Pawar Sharad Baburao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(977)WP122-18.doc

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 122 0F 2018

¶5

Shri Pawar Sharad Baburao & Anr.

¶6

….Petitioners.

¶7

V/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….. 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, the Petitioner who is a teacher

¶16

has approached this Court being aggrieved by refusal by the Respondent – Deputy Director of Education to grant approval to the

¶17

appointment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not been granted

¶18

1/3

¶19

(977)WP122-18.doc

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

4] The issue is no more res integra . The Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016 with connected

¶23

Writ Petitions vide its judgment dated 10^th July, 2017 has observed in para 7 as under:-

¶24

“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 category candidates.”

¶25

2/3

¶26

(977)WP122-18.doc

¶27

5] Undisputedly, the Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) category and was appointed as Shikshan Sevak with effect from 24/08/2012 and as such, he is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, cited supra.

¶28

6] In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/04/2017 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 24/08/2012 as a Shikshan Sevak for three years and thereafter from 24/08/2015 as Assistant Teacher and to pay the Petitioner his regular salary from the month of November, 2018 and all arrears of salary from the date of appointment of the Petitioner till October, 2018 shall be cleared within a period of three months from today.

¶29

7] Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶30

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶31

(B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶32

3/3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Pawar Sharad Baburao 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

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

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