This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's appointment as a Shikshan Sevak. The court noted the appeal was based on a mechanical order considering a ban and procedural gaps under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act.
Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C).
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 ) wp1471.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1471 OF 2019
MILIND VIJAY SHEWALE VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.R.P. Gaur, AGP for respondent/State.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :04.02.2019
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned Counsel Mr.Panpatte for the
petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order
passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Dhule dated 20.01.2017. The submission is that
the petitioner was possessing requisite qualification so
as to submit his application in response to an
advertisement issued in local news-paper for appointment
of Shikshan Sevak from open category to teach Science and
Mathematics subjects. The petitioner was selected and
was appointed. Copy of the appointment order is also
placed on record. The proposal was submitted by the
institute on 08.08.2016 for grant of approval. Learned
Counsel Mr.Panpatte submitted that a mechanical order is
passed by the Education Officer raising grounds, namely,
the institute failed to follow the procedure under the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and there
was ban operating for appointment of the Assistant
Teacher/Shikshan Sevak. Learned Counsel submitted that
the issue of such rejection order was considered and by
way of detailed judgment in a bunch of petitions i.e.
Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016, the Division Bench allowed
the petitions. It is also submitted by learned Counsel
Mr. Panpatte that in para 9 of the order of the Division
Bench, three categories are carved out and the petitioner
falls in category “B”, as the petitioner was appointed to
teach Mathematics and Science subjects. Mr. Panpatte,
learned Counsel also invited our attention to the order
dated 23.02.2018 in Writ Petition No. 2024 of 2017 in
support of his submission.
2.The Counsel for the petitioner has made out
case.
3.The petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (B) and (C) and disposed of.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]
snk/2019/FEB19/wp1471.19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, appointed as a Shikshan Sevak, can challenge the mechanical rejection of his appointment based on procedural non-compliance by the Education Officer.
Whether the petitioner falls into category 'B' allowing appointment to teach Mathematics and Science despite the operational ban.
Milind Vijay Shewale
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court