This writ petition challenges the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment approval by the Education Officer. The court held that the order lacked reasons and the petitioner had a valid stay. The cancellation was quashed.
The impugned order cancelling the petitioner's approval of appointment was quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 1 )
wp5289.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5289 OF 2006 WITH CA/10208/2008 IN WP/5289/2006
Ashok S/o Laxmanrao Devkate,
Age :- 36 yrs., Occ.: Asst. Teacher,
R/o:- Tukaram Naik Primary School,
Pipari Road, Udgir, Dist. Latur.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Latur.
3. Jai Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, (Janapur) Laxmi Niwas, Cpt. Kshisankan Nagar, Bidhar gate, Dist. Latur (Through its Secretary)
4. Tukaram Naik Primary Vidyalay, Pimpri Road, Udgir, Dist. Latur (Through its Head Master)
5.Shaylash S/o Baburao Patil,
Age:-30 yrs, Occ.:-Service,
R/o: Davan Hipparga, Tq.Deoni,
Dist. Latur.... RESPONDENTS
Mr.C.V.Dharurkar , Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent/State
Mr.A.V.Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr.R.J.Godbole, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :24.08.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :(PER: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) :-
Mr. Dharurkar, learned counsel submits that the
petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the
year 1994. He was subsequently terminated. The petitioner
filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. During the
intervening one year respondent No.5 was appointed in
1998. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the School
Tribunal was allowed and the order of termination was set
aside. The petitioner was reinstated. The appointment of
the petitioner was also approved.
2.Respondent No.5 was also terminated from
service. Respondent No.5 also filed an appeal before the
School Tribunal. The appeal filed by respondent No.5 was
allowed by the School Tribunal and confirmed by the High
Court. Pursuant to that the Education Officer canceled the
approval granted to the petitioner and directed management
to reinstate respondent No.5. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioner is aggrieved to the extent of
cancellation of his approval.
3.The learned counsel submits that this Court on
10.08.2006 had granted stay to the impugned order
canceling approval of the petitioner. Respondent No.5 is
working with the same management in another college in a
permanent school.
4.Mr. Godbole, learned advocate submits that
respondent No.5 is also accommodated on a vacant
sanctioned post and his appointment is also approved by
the Education Officer. The learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner is also working on an independent
sanctioned vacant post.
5.In light of the above, nothing remains for
adjudication in the present matter. The Education Officer
( 3 ) wp5289.06
has not given any reason while canceling the approval
granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The order
in absence of reason cannot be sustained.
6.Even otherwise since 12 years the stay is
operating in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner and
respondent No.5 both are working on independent sanctioned
posts.
7.In light of the above the impugned order to the
extent of canceling the approval of the petitioner is
quashed set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolutely in
the above terms. No costs.
8.The Civil Application also stands disposed of.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]
[S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]
ssp/August18/ wp5289.06
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment approval by the Education Officer in absence of reasons can be sustained.
Whether the stay order operating in favour of the petitioner for 12 years should be ended.
Whether the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's approval should be quashed.
Ashok S/o Laxmanrao Devkate
State of Maharashtra School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai
Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Latur
Jai Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Tukaram Naik Primary Vidyalay, Pimpri Road, Udgir, Dist. Latur
Shaylash S/o Baburao Patil
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
S.M.GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court