Allowed

Trishala Rajan Narvekar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2018WP/128/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a teacher seeking approval of her appointment as a Shikshan Sevak. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment, the Court held that the recruitment ban did not apply to her case. It quashed the refusal and directed the respondents to regularize her appointment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; approval granted for appointment as Shikshan Sevak from 2012 and as Assistant Teacher; regular salary and arrears directed to be paid.

Trishala Rajan Narvekar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(926)-WP-128-18 .doc

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.128 OF 2018

¶5

Ms. Trishala Rajan Narvekar …. Petitioner. V/s

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. S.A. Mane, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE: 6^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

2] By way of the above Petition, Petitioner who is a teacher has approached this Court being aggrieved by refusal by the Respondent – Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not been granted approval on the ground that in view of Government Resolution dated 02/05/2012,

¶13

1/3

¶14

(926)-WP-128-18 .doc

¶15

there was a ban on recruitment of teachers and as such, appointments made by the management are illegal.

¶16

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

¶17

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:-

¶18

“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.”

¶19

5] Undisputedly, Petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class

¶20

2/3

¶21

(926)-WP-128-18 .doc

¶22

(O.B.C.) category and was appointed as Shikshan Sevak with effect from 16/10/2012 and as such, she is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, cited supra.

¶23

6] In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 13/12/2017 and 15/05/2017 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 16/10/2012 as a Shikshan Sevak for three years and thereafter 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.

¶24

7] Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶25

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶26

(B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶27

3/3

Trishala Rajan Narvekar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trishala Rajan Narvekar v. the State of Maharashtra, through 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

Santoshkumar Mithailal Kanojia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 11 Ors.

Jivanlal Ramganesh Kanojia and 2 Ors. Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Sra and 3 Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Shivaji Agaldivate Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Dept. and Ors.

Shri Swaroop Bhagoji Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Smt. Meera Vilas Chavan and Ors. Vs Navnath Vitthal Londe and Ors.

Shri. Avinash Bhagwan Patil and Anr. Vs the Education Officer (Secondary) and Ors.