Disposed

Devidas Bhagwan Shinde v. the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2019WP/12490/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a surplus teacher suffering from cancer and fever, was denied absorption due to failure to report. Court ordered him to report on a specified date and directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the pending appeal on merits within three months. Petitioner to be permitted to teach.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to report for duties; Deputy Director of Education to decide pending appeal on merits within three months with personal hearing.

Devidas Bhagwan Shinde Vs the Ratnagiri Zilla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

19-WPST-23271.2019.doc

¶2

suresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION {STAMP} NO.23271 OF 2019

¶4

Devidas Bhagwan Shinde .... Petitioner Vs. The Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad & Others .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. S.D. Rupwate for the Petitioner. Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 7. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for Respondent No.6.

¶6

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2019

¶7

P.C:

¶8

Heard both sides.

¶9

We do not think that any reply affidavit is required from any official other than respondent Nos.3 and 4, who have already placed on record their affidavit in reply.

¶10

The petitioner before us says that he is duly qualified to teach Physical Training Course and was appointed as such on 16-8-1996 in a post reserved for the Scheduled Castes. He was appointed in P.K. Sawant High School, Adare, Chiplun, a fully aided school established and managed by the 6th respondent.

¶11

19-WPST-23271.2019.doc

¶12

suresh

¶13

The 1st respondent before us is the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad, the 2^nd respondent is the Chief Executive Officer and the 3^rd respondent is the Education Officer (Secondary) of the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad whereas the 4^th respondent is the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region. The respondent No.6 is the Chairman of the educational institution which runs the P.K. Sawant High School, of which the 5^th respondent is the Headmaster.

¶14

Though the writ petition challenges order dated 9-8-2019 declaring the writ petitioner as a surplus teacher in place of the other teacher, namely, Sachinkumar Sangayya Shinge, who has not been impleaded as a respondent, after some arguments and on taking instructions from the petitioner present in Court, Mr. S.D. Rupwate, learned counsel appearing for him, says that the petitioner is presently not seeking any relief so as to quash and set aside the order of absorption or the declaration of the petitioner as a surplus teacher. For that relief, he has filed an Appeal which is pending before the Deputy Director of Education of the concerned region.

¶15

The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the order passed declaring him as surplus teacher and seeking to absorb him in some other school. That school, on the own

¶16

Page 2 of 5

¶17

suresh 19-WPST-23271.2019.doc showing of the petitioner, is one whose details are mentioned in the affidavit in reply. That school is Patwardhan High School, Ratnagiri.

¶18

Mr. Rupwate says that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, he is ready and willing to abide by the absorption order and report for duties at the Patwardhan High School, Ratnagiri. However, he could not immediately report for duties in pursuance of the order of absorption because he is ill and suffering from cancer. At the relevant time he was down with fever and a certificate of medical practitioner was also produced.

¶19

We have heard this petition for some time and at some length. We have also perused the petition, the annexures to the memo of the petition and the affidavit in reply.

¶20

Exhibits 6 and 7 to the affidavit in reply are copies of the letter/application dated 10-8-2019 of the petitioner along with the Medical Certificate.

¶21

The order of absorption of the petitioner is dated 9-8-2019. The petitioner stands relieved from the school, namely, P.K. Sawant High School for being absorbed as a surplus teacher in the Patwardhan High School at Ratnagiri. The petitioner has made the application annexing the Medical

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

suresh 19-WPST-23271.2019.doc Certificate on the very next date. However, the petitioner was informed that since he has not reported for duty on the given date and time, now he cannot be absorbed.

¶24

We are of the opinion that a more sympathetic consideration was expected when the petitioner says that he is taking treatment for cancer. The petitioner was also down with fever, which is evidenced by a Medical Certificate. In the circumstances, joining time was required to be given to him. If sufficient and adequate time had been given, possibly he would not have moved the petition. In the whole process, his Appeal has also not been decided by the Deputy Director of Education.

¶25

For all these reasons, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of by recording the statement of Mr. Rupwate, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is present in Court, will report for duties at the Patwardhan High School, Ratnagiri on 27-11-2019 at 11:00 a.m.. We expect the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri as also the Headmaster of Patwardhan High School to allow the petitioner to join the school subject, of course, to his legal rights and contentions. The petitioner be permitted to teach the students and be assigned teaching duties.

¶26

Within three months from today, the Deputy Director

¶27

Page 4 of 5

¶28

suresh 19-WPST-23271.2019.doc of Education shall dispose of the petitioner’s Appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after extending an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. He shall pass a reasoned order as well.

¶29

Without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions insofar as merits of the Appeal, we dispose of this writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.

¶30

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶31

Page 5 of 5

Devidas Bhagwan Shinde v. the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Bhagwan Shinde v. the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Jagadale Santosh Raghunath Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Narayan Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Devendra R. Sanas Vs State of Maharashtra, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Devidas Bhagwan Shinde Vs the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad and Ors.