Dismissed

Mrs. Swapna W/O Amit Pande v. the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC17 Dec 2019WP/5684/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Shikshan Sevak appointment proposal. The court held the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the proposal due to non-compliance with the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012 regarding the advertisement format and qualifications.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the appointment proposal is dismissed.

Mrs. Swapna W/O Amit Pande Vs the Education Officer… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 908 .WP5684.17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5684/2017

¶4

Mrs. Swapna w/o Amit Pande.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and others.

¶7

…........................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order
of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. G. Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri Aadil Mirza, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &

¶10

MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED: 17th DECEMBER, 2019.

¶11

.In response to the advertisement dated
24.03.2015 issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the
petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. The
proposal was forwarded for grant of approval to the
Education Officer and it is rejected by an order dated
07.01.2017 assigning three reasons. Hence, the
petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
said rejection.

¶12

2.In response to notice issued by this Court,
the respondent – Education Officer has filed an affidavit
stating in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 as under.

¶13

“4.The answering respondent also
observed that the advertisement dated
24.03.2015 published in daily ‘Hitvada’
news paper for filling the post of

¶14

2 908 .WP5684.17.odt

¶15

Shikshan Sevak was not in the
prescribed form. It is submitted that,
Govt. Resolution dated 06.02.2012,
guidelines for granting approvals to the
appointment of teaching and non-
teaching employees in private aided
school are given, accordingly it is
mentioned that the following
information should be published in the
advertisement post reservation, the
essential qualification (with medium
and subject) required for the post, age
limit, nature of post i.e. full time/part
time/on clock hour basis/leave vacancy
etc., the grant status of the post i.e.
granted/partially granted/permanent
non granted/non granted etc.
sanctioned post as per the staffing
pattern whether the post is proposed
increased post, remuneration/pay scale
for the post, workload for the post.

¶16

5.It is submitted that, the
advertisement made for the said post
was not in accordance with the above
mentioned guidelines. It was also
noticed that in the advertise, the
education and professional
qualification was given as Hindi with

¶17

3 908 .WP5684.17.odt

¶18

Sanskrit as their measure subjects in
B.A./M.A. & B. Ed. whereas the
qualification of the petitioner was
B.Com, B.A.(Hindi), B.Ed. also it was
noticed that the petitioner was not
having B.Ed. Degree with Sanskrit
subject. Thus it is clear that the
appointment of the petitioner was not
as per the advertisement publish in
news paper considering the above facts,
condition laid down in Govt. Resolution
dated 06.02.2012, the answering
respondent rightly rejected the
proposal for the approval to the
appointment of the petitioner.”

¶19

3.It is urged by the learned Counsel of the
petitioner that the Management has committed mistake
in advertising posts and the petitioner is required to
suffer for such a mistake.

¶20

4.We do not think that the appointment of
the petitioner can be protected on the basis of any such
reason. The Education Officer has taken a stand as
paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 and we do not find any fault
with taking such decision.

¶21

5.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶22

JUDGEJUDGE

¶23

RGurnule

Mrs. Swapna W/O Amit Pande v. the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Swapna W/O Amit Pande v. the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd., Gurgaon

The Commissioner of Income Tax, NAGPUR-1, Nagpur Vs Mr. Pushpendrakumar K. Sharma

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Nagpur Vs M/S. Bharat Hardware and Iron Stores, Nagpur

Pravin Badri Ingale Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Others

Washim Taluka Sahakari Shetki Khardi Vikri Sammittee Maryadit, through Chairman Waman S. Mahalle Vs Asstt. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Washim and Others

Sunilkumar Laxmandas Hotani Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amrvati Division, Amrvati and Others