Allowed

Shaikh Tayyab Maheboob v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Dec 2019WP/4931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner was appointed in 2012 but faced rejection of approval in 2016 based on a 2015 Government Order banning new appointments. This Court held the 2015 order was prospective and invalid for the petitioner's prior appointment, quashing the rejection and directing fresh consideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 16.06.2016 was quashed. The Education Officer was directed to consider the proposal for the petitioner's appointment and communicate the decision within four weeks.

Shaikh Tayyab Maheboob Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp-4931-16.odt 1/7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4931 OF 2016

¶5

Shaikh Tayyab Maheboob, Age : 22 Years, Occ.: Service, R/o at Post Chincholi Mali, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed PETITIONER

¶6

¶7

... VERSUS ...

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad]

¶9

The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur.

¶10

The Education Ofcer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad

¶11

The Secretary, Mahatma Gautam Shikshan, Prasarak Mandal, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad

¶12

The Head Master, Jan Jagruti Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad

¶13

: RESPONDENTS

¶14

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶15

Shri. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.G. Sangale, A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.

¶16

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶17

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶18

DATED : 13^th DECEMBER, 2019

¶19

wp-4931-16.odt 2/7

¶20

JUDGMENT (Per Court : ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶21

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶22

The Education Ofcer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad vide impugned communication dated 16^th June, 2016 informed the petitioner that as per the Government Order dated 12^th February, 2015, till the Goverment receives report of the Committee constituted for revised stafng patern the proposal for grant of approval cannot be considered. The said communication dated 16^th June, 2016 is under challenged.

¶23

Heard Shri A.T.Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.G.Sangale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶24

Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as ‘Lab Attendant’ after following due procedure, on 28^th

¶25

wp-4931-16.odt 3/7

¶26

December, 2012. He submits that respondent no.4 School receives 100% grants for the 5^th to 10^th Standard and therefore a proposal was forwarded to Education Ofcer for grant of approval for the appointment of petitioner as a ‘Lab Attendant’.

¶27

He points out that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Management as per the stafng patern for the year 2010-11 to 2013-14. He further submits that petitioner is qualified for the said post. However, on 27^th June, 2013, the Education Ofcer rejected the proposal submitted by the Management for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner as ‘Lab Attendant’ on the ground that as per Government Resolution dated 25^th November, 2005 the post of Lab Attendant is not admissible.

¶28

He further points out that feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of proposal by the Education Ofcer, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition no. 7180 of 2014 and this Hon’ble Court on 16^th February, 2015 was pleased to quash and set aside the order of Education Ofcer dated

¶29

wp-4931-16.odt 4/7

¶30

27^th June, 2013. This Court in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 has given its findings for setting aside the order of Education Ofcer. Said findings of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 read thus:

¶31

“5. The proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Attendant is rejected only on the ground that, post of Lab Attendant is not admissible as per Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005.

¶32

It is not a matter of dispute that, Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 with regard to stafng pattern was not implemented at any point of time. The other ground agitated in the afdavit in reply, that, the petitioner was not properly appointed is not a ground on which the approval has been rejected.

¶33

In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Ofcer (Secondary) shall consider the proposal forwarded by the Head Master seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Attendant considering recent policy and as per provisions of the Secondary School Code. The petitioner and the management shall represent themselves before the Education Ofcer. The Education Ofcer shall decide the said proposal afresh expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (4) months from today. The writ petition accordingly is diposed of. No costs.”

¶34

wp-4931-16.odt 5/7

¶35

Thus, it is clear that this Court while quashing the order of Education Ofcer directed the Education Ofcer to consider the proposal forwarded by the Head Master seeking approval of the petitioner as Lab Attendant as per recent policy and as per the provision of Secondary School Code.

¶36

There is no dispute that the proposal was not rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible or at the time of appointment due procedure was not followed.

¶37

The decision of the Education Ofcer is based on Government order dated 12^th February, 2015. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is dated 28^th December, 2012, that is much prior to the Government Order dated 12^th February, 2016.

¶38

Learned A.G.P. failed to point out that the said Government Order dated 12^th February, 2015 is having retrospective efect and the same is applicable to the appointments which are made prior to issuance of said Government Order.

¶39

wp-4931-16.odt 6/7

¶40

We have gone through the said Government Order dated 12^th February, 2015, said Government Resolution clearly states that during the period of said Government Resolution no new appointment shall be made in the School. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the said Government Resolution is propective in nature and not having any retrospective efect and therefore according to us the same will not apply to the case of the petitioner as the appointment of the petitioner is dated 28.08.2012 i.e. prior to issuance of said Government Order.

¶41

In the light of the above observations, the impugned communication dated 16.06.2015 issued by the Education Ofcer, Secondary Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad is quashed and set aside i.e. prior to issuance of said Government Order.

¶42

Education Ofcer is directed to consider the proposal forwarded by the Management for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner as ‘Lab

¶43

wp-4931-16.odt 7/7

¶44

Attendant’, a fresh and communicate the decision within four weeks from the receipt of this order.

¶45

The rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶46

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶47

JUDGE JUDGE

¶48

sknair

Shaikh Tayyab Maheboob v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Tayyab Maheboob 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inamdar Khwaja Moinuddin Vs Nipun Vinayak Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corp and Another

Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha Gautam Nagar through Its President S B Bhamre and Others Vs Asim Kumar Gupta Th Secretary Rural Development Department and Otehrs

Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha Gautam Nagar through Its President S B Bhamre and Others Vs Asim Kumar Gupta Secretary Rural Development Department and Otehrs

Rajesh Ramdas Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vyankat Pandharinath Mundhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rawassa Construction, Engineers and Contractors through It S Partner Anees E. Khatri Vs State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Dhule and Other