Allowed

Shashank Shivajirao Chimanshette v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Sept 2018WP/4543/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad examined the rejection of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher due to alleged surplus teacher availability. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in WP No. 8587 of 2016, the Court held the impugned order unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29th March 2017 dated 29th March, 2017 is held unsustainable; petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d).

Shashank Shivajirao Chimanshette Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

4543.17wp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4543 OF 2017

¶5

Shashank s/o Shivajirao Chimanshette,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service,
As an Assistant Teacher,
R/o Ujed, Tq. Shirur-Anantpal,
Dist. Latur..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶8

2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur

¶9

3. Sambhaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Theregaon, Tq. Shirur-Anantpal, Dist. Latur, Through its Secretary

¶10

4. Shri. Premnath Vidyalaya, Thergaon, Tq. Shirur-Anantpal, Dist. Latur, Through its Headmaster ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr Vikas G. Kodale, Advocate h/f Mr V.D. Gunale,
Advocate for petitioner;

¶12

Mr S.M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶13

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶14

 MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶15

 DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2018

(2)

4543.17wp

ORAL ORDER :

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

¶20

petitioner and learned A.G.P. for State
authorities.

¶21

2.The petitioner is challenging the order

¶22

passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Latur on 29th March, 2017. Learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by inviting
our attention to the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 245 of

¶23

2017 submitted that in the first round of
litigation, the petition was disposed of by issuing
directions to the Education Officer (Secondary) to
decide the proposal within stipulated period. He
invited our attention to the documents placed on
record.

¶24

3.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioner further submitted that the petitioner
was possessing requisite academic qualification.
He then invited our intention to the communication

¶26

4543.17wp (3)

¶27

dated 18th September, 2013 forwarded to the
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad
requesting him to grant permission to publish an
advertisement to fill up the post of Assistant
Teacher for English subject. Perusal of the
communication shows that the post was falling
vacant in view of retirement of earlier teacher
Shivnage Nagnath Rachappa. Then again reminder is
forwarded to the Education Officer on 4th December,
2013. The Education Officer is apprised of the fact
namely retirement of Shivnage Nagnath Rachappa.

¶28

Copy of the roster was also annexed to the
communication as well as inspection report of
approval of staffing pattern and it is further
stated in the communication that in spite of
earlier communication dated 19th September, 2013 no
permission is received. As such, second proposal is
submitted to the Education Officer seeking his
approval.

¶29

4.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioner then submitted that even to the second

¶31

4543.17wp

¶32

(4)

¶33

proposal, there was no response from the Education
Officer, as such, advertisement was published in
the newspaper calling upon the candidates to appear
for interview scheduled on 27th September, 2013. He

¶34

then submitted that there was as many as nine
candidates who have stake their claim and the
petitioner was appointed assessing his merit. The
appointment was also approved in the resolution
passed in the meeting dated 29th November, 2013. He
then invited our attention to the order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 3945 of 2017, dated

¶35

20th August, 2018. Thus, it is submission of
learned Counsel that the order passed by the
Education Officer (Secondary) impugned in the
petition is clearly unsustainable.

¶36

5.It is not in dispute that the petitioner
was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher for
teaching English subject and the institute time and
again approached the Education Officer seeking his
approval for filling the post with all necessary
and requisite documents. At no point of time, the

¶37

4543.17wp (5)

¶38

Education Officer raised any objection. The
proposal forwarded by the institute stating that
there are already surplus teachers available and
the institute may accommodate such surplus teachers
in their school. The Education Officer was keeping
mum for a considerable period and then suddenly in
the order dated 29th March, 2017 arrived at a
conclusion that as there are many surplus teachers
available and till all these surplus teachers are
accommodated and absorbed in some other school, no
approval can be granted to the appointment of the
petitioner. The Education Officer also referred to
certain orders passed at Bench of this Court at

¶39

Nagpur in Writ Petition Nos.6606 of 2015, 6067 of
2015 and 156 of 2016.

¶40

6.Interestingly enough, the first ground of
absorption of the surplus teachers is already dealt
with by the Division Bench of this Court at
Principal Seat in the judgment in Writ Petition
No.8587 of 2016 and the judgment is of dated 9th
December,2017. The Division Bench has taken into

¶41

(6)

¶42

4543.17wp

¶43

consideration the ground raised of availability of
surplus teachers. The Division Bench referred to
three categories in the order dated 20th August,
2018. We have referred to the judgment in detail,
as well as the categories namely A, B and C carved
out in the judgment of the Division Bench. The
case of the petitioner falls under category B and C
namely there was a post available for subject
English and petitioner admits that he was selected
from open category. Even the order impugned in the
petition is not on the ground that the petitioner
was occupying the post from candidate of open
category but it only relates to the objection of
availability of surplus teachers. When the
Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat had
the occasion to consider all the aspects and when
the order is passed by the Principal Seat on 9th
March, 2017 and followed in other judgments at
Principal Seat as well as Benches, the Education
Officer ought not to have referred to some earlier
orders passed in the year 2015 or 2016 and ought
not to have rejected the proposal for approval by

¶44

4543.17wp (7)

¶45

order dated 29th March, 2017.

¶46

7.Considering all the above referred

¶47

aspects, we are of the opinion that learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner made out a case. The

¶48

order impugned in the petition is clearly
unsustainable. Resultantly, the petition is

¶49

allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (D).

¶50

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶51

Tupe

Shashank Shivajirao Chimanshette v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Shivajirao Chimanshette 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmanrao Bajirao Kale Vs Laxmanrao Kolhe and Others

Ballu Pandurang Nake and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyanobarao Namdeorao Patil Died Lrs Balasaheb Dnyanobarao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahyadri Bahujan Vidya Prasarak Samaj through Its Registrar Vs Nandkumar and Others

Malikarjun Ramrao Rodge Vs Rajesh Jaising Gole and Others

Vijay @ Vijaykumar Keshavrao Bahhadure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others