Remanded

Somnath Rajaram Ahire v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Oct 2018WP/5736/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court, while the matter remains pending hearing before the Deputy Director of Education regarding the surplus status and transfer of petitioners, fixed a specific date for hearing before the authority and directed the respondent to decide the grievance and seniority issue within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Director of Education to hear the parties on 2nd November 2018 and decide the representations and grievance regarding seniority within ten weeks from the date of the order.

Somnath Rajaram Ahire Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

5736.17wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5736 OF 2017

¶5

Somnath s/o Rajaram Ahire,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Service as an
Assistant Teacher in Punyaslkoshlok
Ahilyadedvi Holkar College,
Rani Savargaon, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶9

3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.

¶10

4. Samajivi Samaj Kalyan Mandal, Rani Savargaon, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, Through its Secretary.

¶11

5. Punyasloshlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Higher Secondary School, Rani Savargaon, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.

¶12

6. Little Flower Higher Secondary School, Parli Vaijinath, Dist. Beed Through its Principal. ..RESPONDENTS

¶13

5736.17wp

¶14

(2)

¶15

Mr Pratap G. Rodge, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent/State;
Mr G.S. Rane, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5;
Mr S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶16

WITH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.8979 OF 2017

¶18

Pandit s/o Ramrao Rathod,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Service,
As Junior Lecturer in
Punyashlok Ahilyadedvi Holkar
Junior College, Rani Savargaon,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.

¶19

..PETITIONER

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶22

2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶23

3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.

¶24

4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶25

5. The Secretary, Shramjeevi Samaj Kalyan Mandal, Rani Savargaon, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, Through its Secretary.

¶26

6. The Principal, Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Junior College, Pangri Road, Rani Savargaon, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.

¶27

(3)

¶28

5736.17wp

¶29

7.The Principal,
Vaidyanath Junior College,
Parli (Vaijinath),
Dist. Beed...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Mr Pratap G. Rodge, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent/State;
Mr G.S. Rane, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6;
Mr V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent No.7

¶31

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶32

 DATE : 19th OCTOBER, 2018

¶33

ORAL ORDER :

¶34

The petitioners are before this Court

¶35

challenging challenging the order passed by the
Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad dated 3rd April, 2017. By the said
order, these two petitioners are declared surplus.
Petitioner Ahire is at Serial No.5, whereas
petitioner Rathod is at Serial No.1.

¶36

2.The submission of Mr. Rodge, learned

¶37

Counsel appearing for the petitioners is, these
petitioners are senior most teachers in the school.

¶38

5736.17wp (4)

¶39

They are teaching subjects Psychology and Hindi respectively. Learned Counsel Mr. Rodge submits that during pendency of the petition, on 27^th April, 2017, while issuing notice, the Division Bench of this Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo . He submitted that in spite of order passed by this Court granting status quo, Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad passed order on 14^th June,2017 and the petitioner Ahire was directed to be absorbed in another school namely Little Flower, Higher Secondary School, Parli Vaijinath, District Beed. He immediately submitted the representation to the Deputy Director of Education on 27^th June, 2017 apprising the said authority that the order of the grant of status quo passed by this Court is still in operation and subsequent order passed by the Deputy Director dated 14^th June, 2017 is contrary to the order of this Court dated 27^th April, 2017 and this order is unsustainable.

¶40

3.Mr. Rodge, learned Counsel appearing for

¶41

5736.17wp (5)

¶42

the petitioners submits that Deputy Director of

¶43

Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad passed
order on 14th June,2017 and the petitioner Rathod
was directed to be absorbed in another school
namely Vaidyanath Junior College, Parli Vaijinath,
District Beed. He immediately submitted the
representation to the Deputy Director of Education
on 4th July, 2017 apprising the said authority that

¶44

due to some dispute between management and
Principal, he has not joined in the said school.
Again on 7th July, 2017 the petitioner Rathod by
communication to Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad informed that
Principal is on leave and nobody responsible person
is there to join him due to dispute between
management.

¶45

3.It was also submitted before the Deputy

¶46

Director of Education that with this protest, the
petitioner approached to Little Flower Higher
Secondary School, Parli Vaijinath, District Beed so
as to join the said school but there was no

¶47

5736.17wp (6)

¶48

response from the school and the said school
expressed its inability to join the petitioner
raising grounds of certain technical difficulties.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners also invited
our attention to the communication forwarded by the
said school i.e. Little Flower Secondary and Higher
Secondary School, Parli Vaijinath, District Beed.
This communication is dated 3rd July, 2017 and it
is informed to the Deputy Director that the said
school is unable to join the petitioner as subject
political science is not available in the school.

¶49

4.Learned Counsel submitted that the

¶50

petitioners were dragged in a peculiar situation
wherein the they were relieved from earlier school
and were not permitted to join in subsequent
school. Thus, the petitioners were neither having
any work nor were having salary for this period.
The petitioner Ahire again approached Deputy
Director of Education by submitting representation
bringing to the notice of the said authority all
these facts.

¶51

5736.17wp

¶52

(7)

¶53

5.Perusal of other documents placed on

¶54

record show that the Deputy Director of Education
in view to decide the representation of the
petitioners called upon the Secretary of Shramjeevi
Samaj Kalyan Mandal, Rani Savargaon, headmaster of
the earlier school Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar
Junior College, Rani Savargaon, Taluka Gangakhed,
District Parbhani and petitioners, hearing was
scheduled on 18th August, 2017.

¶55

6.Mr. Rodge, learned Counsel submits that

¶56

the petitioners attended hearing and the matter is
pending before the authority namely Deputy Director
of Education till date for his decision.

¶57

7.Learned A.G.P. by inviting our attention
to the document placed on record dated 30th July,
2017 submitted that on earlier hearing fixed by
Deputy Director of Education dated 25th July, 2017
representative of the institute and head master
failed to attend the hearing, as such, meeting

¶58

5736.17wp

¶59

(8)

¶60

could not proceed further and the Deputy Director
thought it fit to grant one more opportunity to the
parties and scheduled hearing on 18th August, 2017.

¶61

8.Mr. Rane, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in W.P. No.5736 of 2017 and
for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in W.P. No.8979 of 2017
submitted that the respondents could not receive
notice issued by the Deputy Director of Education
about hearing of the matter, as such, they were not
able to attend the hearing. Mr. Rane, learned
Counsel, on instructions, submits that the
respondents are ready to appear before Deputy
Director of Education for hearing and to submit
their say in the matter.

¶62

instructions, raised point that though initially

¶63

the petitioners were not permitted to join in
absence of work load but the petitioners were
subsequently permitted to attend on 11th October,

¶64

2017 and they are being paid salary. Statement to

¶65

5736.17wp

¶66

(9)

¶67

that effect is also made in the affidavit.

¶68

10.Mr. Rodge, learned Counsel appearing for

¶69

the petitioners admits this factual situation. He
submits that though petitioners joined in view of
the order given, they are deprived of the salary
for the period from July to October, 2017.

¶70

11.We are of the opinion that a the Deputy
Director is hearing the matter and even opportunity
of hearing was granted by the Deputy Director to
the parties, the last date of hearing was 18th
August, 2017. It is submitted before this Court
that subsequent to 18th August, 2017 though the
dates were given for hearing, the matter could not
proceed before the Deputy Director.

¶71

12.Considering all these aspects, we are of

¶72

the opinion that the petitions can be disposed of
by directing the Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad to decide the
representation of the petitioners and pass

¶73

5736.17wp (10)

¶74

appropriate orders, needless to state on merits, by
giving opportunity for hearing to the parties.

¶75

13.The parties submits before this Court that
if fixed date is given, they would appear before
the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad
Division, Aurangabad and extend their co-operation
to the said authority to decide the matter.

¶76

14.In view of submission of the Counsel for
the petitioners and the respondents, we direct the
Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad to hear the parties on 2nd November,
2018. If the parties requests for any further
hearing or submission of the documents in support
of their say, such opportunity be granted to the
parties. The Deputy Director of Education to decide
the representations and grievance raised by the
petitioners as early as possible and not later than
ten weeks from the date of the order of this Court.

¶77

5736.17wp (11)

¶78

15.Mr. Rodge, learned Counsel submits that as

¶79

the petitioners claimed that they are senior most
teachers in the school, the Deputy Director of
Education to decide the issue of seniority also.

¶80

16.The petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶81

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

¶82

Tupe

Somnath Rajaram Ahire v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somnath Rajaram Ahire 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adiwasi Chetna Parishad Thorough Chairman Shridhar Khandu Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Vishwanath Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra State Public Prosecutors Association through Its President S P Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union Shramik Ahmednagar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Namdeo Bhagaji Kharat Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Ratan Anandrao Suradkar