Allowed

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

Bombay HC19 Oct 2018WP/13434/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a writ petition by a teacher aggrieved by the rejection of his appointment approval due to a recruitment ban. The court relied on a prior division bench judgment to hold the petitioner eligible as an S.C. candidate fulfilling backlog, quashing the refusal order and directing the respondent to regularize the appointment and pay dues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Respondents directed to approve appointment from 12/06/2014 and pay salary from November 2018 with arrears.

Shri. Ralshetkar Avinash Shankar Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(929)-WP-13434-17.doc

¶2

BGP

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.13434 OF 2017

¶5

Shri. Palshetkar Avinash Shankar

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶13

M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 19^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

2] By way of the above Petition, Petitioner who is a teacher has approached this Court being aggrieved by refusal by the Respondent – Deputy Director of Education to grant approval to the appointment

¶18

of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not been granted approval on the

¶19

1/3

¶20

(929)-WP-13434-17.doc

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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:

¶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

(929)-WP-13434-17.doc

¶27

5] Undisputedly, Petitioner who belongs to S.C. Category is appointed with effect from 12/06/2014 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 15/05/2017 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. 12/06/2014 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.

¶29

7] Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶30

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶31

3/3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ralshetkar Avinash Shankar 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

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.

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