Partly allowed

Kirankumar Uttamrao Metalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Dec 2018WP/547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment as a Scheduled Tribe teacher. The court quashed orders rejecting the proposal based on a recruitment ban, relying on a prior Bombay bench observation that bans do not apply to appointments made after a selection process had commenced prior to the ban.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal for reconsideration of appointment proposal directed to be decided expeditively within four months on merits.

Kirankumar Uttamrao Metalwad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

915-wp-547-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

915 WRIT PETITION NO.547 OF 2018

¶5

KIRANKUMAR UTTAMRAO METALWAD

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. S. Badakh, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. V. G. Kodale h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for
the Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 11th DECEMBER, 2018.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

1.Mr. Panpatte, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that upon vacancy being created
on retirement of senior teachers, the institution
applied to the Education Officer seeking permission
to fill in the post on 20.06.2013 and 22.07.2013.
The Education Officer did not respond. Thereafter,
the advertisement was issued on 10.08.2013. After
following due selection process, the petitioner was
appointed under appointment order dated 25.09.2013.

¶14

2.The learned counsel further submits that
at the time when the petitioner was appointed, the
ban on recruitment was relaxed to the extent of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. The

¶15

(2) 915-wp-547-2018

¶16

petitioner is appointed from Scheduled Tribe
category. The learned counsel submits that the
petitioner also has validity certificate with him.
The proposal forwarded by the institution seeking
approval to the appointment of the petitioner is
rejected solely on the ground that there is a ban
on recruitment and violation of proviso to section
5(1) of the M.E.P.S. Act, so also the availability
of the surplus teachers. The learned counsel
submits that the ban on recruitment does not apply
to the SC/ST candidates and relies on the orders
passed by the High Court at its Principal Seat at
Bombay in Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016 with
connected writ petitions dated 10.07.2017.

¶17

3.The learned A.G.P. submits that the
selection process had commenced prior to the ban on
recruitment of SC/ST candidates was lifted. The
learned A.G.P. further submits that there are large
number of surplus candidates to be absorbed.

¶18

4.We had specifically asked the learned
A.G.P. whether the Education Officer had sent
surplus candidates from Scheduled Tribe category to
the respondent-Institution for absorption all these
years. The learned A.G.P. replied in a negative.
It also appears and it is not denied by the
Education Officer that the institution had applied
seeking permission to the Education Officer for
filling in the vacant post on 20.06.2013 and
22.07.2013. The Education Officer did not respond

¶19

(3) 915-wp-547-2018

¶20

and thereafter, issuing advertisement and inviting
applications, the petitioner is appointed from
Scheduled Tribe category. It is also not disputed
that the backlog of reserve category candidate are
allowed to be filled in as per the Government
Resolution dated 31.03.2013.

¶21

5.This Court at its Principal Seat at Bombay
in Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016 dated 10.07.2017
has observed thus:

¶22

“6.We find that if the Education Officers do
not send the surplus teachers within
reasonable time, the schools can not be
expected to run without teachers for years
together. Undisputedly, finding it difficult
to send surplus teachers for the subjects of
English, Maths and Science, the State
Government itself has relaxed the rigour of
governed resolution dated 2nd May 2012 vide GR
dated 4th September 2013. It could further be
seen that State Government also vide that GR
relaxed the ban where the selection process
has already commenced on 6th September 2012.

¶23

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 be applicable to three
categories, one where the recruitment process
is already commenced prior to GR dated 2nd 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 fulfill the backlog of
reserved category candidates.

¶24

8.We find that at the same time the State
should take into consideration, that such
situations arise on account of inaction of its
own Education Officers. If Education officers

¶25

(4) 915-wp-547-2018

¶26

act promptly and ensure that the surplus
teachers are absorbed in the schools wherever
there is a vacancy, such a situation would not
arise. However, as already observed
hereinabove on account of inaction on the part
of Education Officers, right which has become
fundamental, in view of amendment to the
constitution by which Article 21A brought in
the Constitution, cannot be permitted to be
frustrated. The schools are not expected to
run without teachers for years together. The
State would always be at liberty to take
appropriate action against its officers, on
account of who's inaction the State exchequer
will be burdened.

¶27

9.In the result the Writ Petitions are
allowed and impugned orders are quashed and
set aside. The Respondents - Education
Officers are directed to examine independent
cases and grant approval to each of the
teachers who fall in the following three
categories:-

¶28

(a) Where the recruitment process is already commenced prior to GR dated 2^nd May 2012;

¶29

(b) Where the appointments made for filing up vacancies in English, Mathematics and Science;

¶30

(c) Where the recruitment is made to fulfill the backlog of reserve categories candidates;”

¶31

6.In light of the above, the impugned order
is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer
shall reconsider the proposal seeking approval to
the appointment of petitioner on its own merits,
considering all the relevant aspects of the matter.
However, shall not reject it on the ground the

¶32

(5) 915-wp-547-2018 impugned order is passed. The same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (04) months.

¶33

7.Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. No

¶34

costs.

¶35

(R. G. AVACHAT) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

Devendra/December-18

Kirankumar Uttamrao Metalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirankumar Uttamrao Metalwad 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

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

Kashinath Piraji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atul Anilrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Jeevan Vithalrao Hendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Limbajirao Kokadwar Vs Kautik Gunajirao Ghuge and Ors.