Dismissed

Purushottam S/O Dinkar Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2018WP/3632/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the implementation of a Government Resolution regarding night schools. The High Court held that petitioners had no right to work as part-time teachers as surplus teachers were available, dismissing the plea to quash the Government Resolution or protect their appointments.

What did the court decide?

writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; object is to prevent implementation of a Government Resolution.

Purushottam S/O Dinkar Choudhari and Others Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

3001wp3632.17.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3632/2017

¶5

Purushottam s/o Dinkar Choudhari and others ...Versus...

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of School Education & Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032 and others

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

¶11

Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Counsel for petitioners Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 Shri Anand Parchure, Counsel for intervenors

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. DATE : 30/01/2018

¶13

By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Government Resolution dated 17/5/2017 and have sought a direction against the State Government and the concerned respondents not to implement the Government Resolution for the Secondary and Higher Secondary night schools.

¶14

It is fairly stated on behalf of the petitioners that the Government Resolution dated 17/5/2017 was challenged in a writ petition at the Principal Seat and the Court has dismissed the said writ petition by negating the challenge. It is submitted that the Government Resolution may not be implemented for the Secondary Schools that are running in night shifts, as according to the petitioners there are no surplus teachers available with the

¶15

3001wp3632.17.odt

¶16

¶17

respondent nos.1 to 4 that could be absorbed in the night schools. It is submitted that at least the arrangement of the petitioners working in the night schools as part-time teachers should be continued till the end of this session.

¶18

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 states that there are several surplus teachers available for teaching the secondary classes and they could be sent to the night schools as part-time teachers. It is submitted that the petitioners would not have a right to work as part-time teachers in the night schools, specially when the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 17/5/2017 has failed.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the intervenors submitted that the intervenors are actually working in the night schools and their services would be discontinued if the petitioners are permitted to work as part-time teachers in the night schools.

¶20

In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioners in the instant writ petition. Firstly, the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 17/5/2017 has failed. If that is so, the petitioners would not have a right to work as part-time teachers in the night schools. The petitioners are regular and permanent teachers working in the day schools and there is no right in the petitioners to work as part-time teachers in the night schools, specially when several surplus teachers are available with the respondent nos.1 to 4, who could be absorbed the night schools as part-time teachers. Also, the intervenors have claimed that they are actually working as regular teachers in the night schools and therefore

¶21

3001wp3632.17.odt

¶22

¶23

their services would be affected, if the claim of the petitioners is granted.

¶24

Since the petitioners have not made out any case for granting the relief sought in this writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

Wadkar

Purushottam S/O Dinkar Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam S/O Dinkar Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Akshay S/O Dharma Madavi, Thr. P.O.A. Holder, Purshottam S/O Wasudeo Kulmathe and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur and Another

Aliyar Khan Miyan Khan and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer P.S. Old City Akola and Another

Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

Gulab S/O Madhukar Nale and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, P.S. Rajura and Another

Amol Gopalsingh Maher Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal (Rural) and Others

Amol Gopalsingh Maher Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal (Rural) and Others