Dismissed

Mamta Pandurang Nimje v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018WP/1679/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her seniority list, claiming calculation from appointment date due to later B.Ed. acquisition. Court held appointment fell under category 'C' of M.E.P.S. Rules since B.Ed. was obtained in 1997, dismissing the writ based on a Govt. circular.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; petitioner's claim against the seniority list dismissed based on the Government circular.

Mamta Pandurang Nimje Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Sr33 WP1679.2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1679 OF 2017

¶4

Sau. Mamta Pandurang Nimje … Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Mr S. R. Dheple, Advocate for the petitioner Mr A. S. Shinde, AGP for respondent/State Mr Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 4 Mr R. J. Godbole, Advocate for respondents nos. 6 to 8

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 15^TH JANUARY, 2018.

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

. The petitioner assails the seniority list on the ground that

¶13

her seniority should be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of acquiring B.Ed. qualification. The learned counsel refers to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sunil S/o Gopalrao Pande and others v. Amravati Zilla Parishad and others reported in [2016(6) Mh.L.J. 576] .

¶14

Learned AGP refers to circular dt. 14.11.2017 and states that as the petitioner has subsequently obtained B.Ed. qualification, the date of obtaining the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner is considered

¶15

2 Sr33 WP1679.2017

¶16

as the relevant date for placing her in the seniority of the trained graduate teacher.

¶17

The petitioner at the time of appointment was possessing qualification of SSC D.Ed. She was appointed as a Primary Teacher. The petitioner upon acquiring B.Ed. in the year 1997 came to be posted as Graduate Trained Teacher and, thereafter, the service of the petitioner shall fall in the category ‘C’ of Schedule F of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. The petitioner is posted as a Graduate Trained Teacher in April, 1997 and as such appointment of the petitioner on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher will have to be considered from the date of petitioner acquired that qualification.

¶18

The petitioner has not challenged the circular dt.14.11.2017. Clause 4 and 5 of the said circular read thus:

¶19

Þ4 inoh izkIr dsY;kuarj lacaf/kr f'k{kdkpk inoh/kj f'k{kdkaP;k ;knhe/;s lekos'k gksbZy lnj ;knhrhy R;kpk T;s"Brspk fnukad gk v[kaM losrhy f'k{kd inkojhy izFke fu;qDrhpk tks fnukad vlsy] rks fnukad jkghy-

¶20

5- f'k{kd laoxkZr izFke fu;qDrh fnukad o v[kaM lsok fopkjkr ?ksoqu r;kj dj.;kr vkysyh lkekbZd T;s"BRkklwph inksUurhdjhrk fopkjkr ?ks.;kr ;koh o inksUurhP;k inkdjhrk vko';d vl.kkjh 'kS{kf.kd o O;kolkf;d vgZrk vuqHkokP;k vVhlg inksUurhP;k osGsl lacaf/kr f'k{kd /kkj.k djhr vlsy rj] inksUurhP;k inklkBh lacaf/kr f'k{kdkpk fopkj djkok-ß

¶21

3 Sr33 WP1679.2017

¶22

The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court refers to seniority list of Primary Teachers in Zilla Parishad and not teachers in Secondary School. The judgment of the Apex Court is considered by the Division Bench in case of Sunil Pande (supra) and the said judgment is regarding the teachers in Primary School.

¶23

The petitioner has not assailed the said circular. In view of the said circular, the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

Punde

Mamta Pandurang Nimje v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Pandurang Nimje v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Tirupati Bandu Renewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Suryabhan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Ashwin Tractors through Its Proprietor Ashwin Shantaram Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Tukaram Warangale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil Vs the Union of India and Others