Allowed

Mrs. Nikam Pradnya Sagar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2018WP/129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a teacher and her employing school seeking approval of appointment. The Education Officer refused due to a ban on teacher recruitment. The High Court applied a prior Division Bench judgment creating exceptions to the ban and allowed the petition, ordering approval and payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27/11/2017 quashed. Respondents directed to grant approval to appointment and pay regular salary from November 2018 along with all arrears.

Mrs. Nikam Pradnya Sagar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(932)-WP-129-18.doc

¶2

BGP

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.129 OF 2018

¶5

1] Mrs. Nikam Pradnya Sagar 2] Shri. Datta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Panutre ..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. S. A. Mane I/by Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.

¶10

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶11

M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 19^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

and Petitioner No.2 – Shikshan Sanstha have approached this Court being aggrieved by refusal by the Respondent – Education Officer to

¶17

grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1. The

¶18

1/3

¶19

(932)-WP-129-18.doc

¶20

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.

¶21

3] Mr. V. M. Mali, learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 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 Writ Petitions vide its judgment dated 10^th July, 2017 has observed in para 7 as under:

¶23

“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.”

¶24

2/3

¶25

(932)-WP-129-18.doc

¶26

5] Undisputedly, Petitioner No.1 who belongs to OBC Category is appointed with effect from 26/08/2013 and as such, she 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 27/11/2017 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 from the date of her appointment i.e. 26/08/2013 as a Shikshan Sevak for three years and thereafter as Assistant Teacher and to pay the Petitioner No.1 her regular salary from the month of November, 2018 and all arrears of salary from the date of appointment of the 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.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶30

3/3

Mrs. Nikam Pradnya Sagar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nikam Pradnya Sagar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Sidram Rayamane Vs Council of Educations, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kumar Ravindra Virendra Vs Vpm'S , Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Kumar Ravindra Virendra Vs Vpm'S , Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Niranjan Maruti Nagotkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Dr. Bhaskar Ravibhai Trivedi Vs the Stata Chief Information Commissioner Maharashtra State and 4 Ors.

Shri. Ralshetkar Avinash Shankar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Ors.