The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Education Officer's refusal to approve the petitioner's appointment as a full-time Shikshan Sevak, holding that prior part-time service benefits were not applicable due to lack of continuity.
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.
34.wp6640.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6640 OF 2017
Ms. Paurnima Sukhdeo Patil & anr.
.. Petitioners.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & anr. .. Respondents.
Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar I/b. Mr. M.G. Bagkar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 2, 2018.
P. C. :
1 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned AGP for State.
2 By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Education Officer refusing an approval to the appointment of petitioner No. 1 as full-time Shikshan Sevak. It is not disputed that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as full-time Shikshan Sevak on 1/8/2015. There is also no dispute that at the time of this appointment, ban as imposed on new recruitments in the private aided schools as per Government Resolution dated 2/5/2012 was in force.
Talwalkar
1/2
34.wp6640.17.doc
2 Mr. Bandiwadekar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner however, submits that Petitioner No. 1 was earlier appointed as parttime Shikshan Sevak for the period of 4 years from 2009 to 2013 and therefore, benefit of this part-time service needs to be given to petitioner No. 1. In this regard, he relied upon the Government Resolutions dated 31/1/2001 and 10/6/2005 . He also relied upon the Order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4120 of 2016 dated 28/2/2017. We have gone through the same. The said government resolutions and the order of this Court referred to above are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in as much as, when petitioner No. 1 was appointed as full-time Shikshan Sevak, she was not working as a part-time Shikshan Sevak.
3 The Education Officer has considered the issue in proper and correct perspective and arrived at a correct conclusion. The same is in accordance with the Government policy. We are therefore, not inclined to interfere in the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is dismissed.
[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Talwalkar
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition challenging the refusal of approval for full-time appointment should be allowed given the petitioner was not employed part-time previously
Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits of part-time service rule despite not working part-time prior to full-time appointment
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 4120 of 2016 dated 28/2/2017Referred¶17
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ms. Paurnima Sukhdeo Patil
State of Maharashtra
RANJIT MORE
SADHANA S. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
