Dismissed

Kapil Bhimrao Wadmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Dec 2019WP/8670/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner as a Special Teacher in a special school and the rejection of his appeal before the Regional Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that the petitioner's Diploma qualification was suitable only for preschools and not for the Elementary/Upper Primary school where he was employed, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

null

Kapil Bhimrao Wadmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp-8670-16.odt 1/7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8670 OF 2016

¶5

Kapil S/o Bhimrao Wadmare, Age : 29 Years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o Panchsheelnagar, Palwan Road, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶6

: PETITIONER

¶7

... VERSUS ...

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through Commissioner, Handicapped Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶9

The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Aurangabad.

¶10

The Social Welfare Ofcer Group-A, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.

¶11

The President, Twaritadevi Bahu Uddeshi Seva, Bhavi Sanstha, Beed.

¶12

The Head Master, Twaritadevi Bahu Uddeshi Seva, Bhavai Sanstha’s Matimand Niwasi Vidyalaya, Beed By-Pass Road, Behind Mhaske Petrol Pump, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. : RESPONDENTS

¶13

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

¶14

Shri. Suresh B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

DATED : 4^th DECEMBER, 2019.

¶18

wp-8670-16.odt 2/7

¶19

JUDGMENT (Per ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner was working as a Special Teacher in respondent no.5 school and he was not allowed to work after 30^th July, 2012. Therefore he raised a grievance by filing appeal challenging his otherwise termination. The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Division, Aurangabad, rejected the said appeal vide its order dated 3^rd February, 2016, the same is under challenge in the present petition.

¶22

Heard Shri S.B.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.S.Thombre for respondent nos. 4 and 5 & Shri S.P. Sonpawale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶23

Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding Educational

¶24

wp-8670-16.odt 3/7

¶25

qualification HSC and ‘Diploma in Early Childhood Special Education Mental Retardation’.

¶26

He submits that petitioner was appointed as Special Teacher in respondent no.5 School and he continously worked in the said school, till 30^th July, 2012, however on the said date the Management terminated the petitioner by not allowing him to attend the school.

¶27

Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Government Resolution dated 18^th August, 2004, the petitioner is possessing requisite qualification and he is eligible to work as Special Teacher.

¶28

He submits that ‘Diploma in Early Childhood Special Education Mental Retardation’ after HSC was the required qualification to hold the post of Special Teacher in the respondent Special School, on the date of appointment on 11^th September, 2009. Therefore, the qualification which the Regional Deputy Commissioner is referring to as per the R.C.I. letter dated 11^th January, 2012, which has prospective application, the said qualification would not

¶29

wp-8670-16.odt 4/7

¶30

apply to the petitioner. Hence, he submits that oral termination as well as rejection of appeal, is illegal.

¶31

Shri Thombre, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that the respondent no.4 is running Respondent no. 5 School for the age group of 6 to 18 years and though at the relevant time the petitioner was appointed but he does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the said post. Moreover, he submits that there is no approval granted to his appointment by the competent authority.

¶32

He further submits that he was prevented from attending the school only because he is not having the requisite qualification and therefore there is no illegality committed by the management of the school in removing the petitioner.

¶33

He further submitted that the appeal filed before the Regional Deputy Commissioner, was time barred and it was rightly rejected by the Regional Deputy Comissioner.

¶34

wp-8670-16.odt 5/7

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the educational qualification which the petitioner, possesses is a Diploma in Early Childhood Special Education Mental Retardation’ which even as per RCI is the minimum qualification for Special Education Teacher for Pre-School Nursary and Play School. The qualification prescribed in Government Resolution dated 18^th August, 2004 that is prior to the appointment of petitioner, for appointment as a Special Teacher, was certificate of Secondary or Higher Secondary with training and specialized training in the concerned category and registration with RCI.

¶36

He submits that though the Diploma possessed by the petitioner is registered with RCI, but the said qualification is for as a ‘Special Education Teacher’ in Preschool Nursery or Play-school and not in the Elementary Primary Upper Primary School like the respondent no.5 School.

¶37

To consider the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record.

¶38

wp-8670-16.odt 6/7

¶39

There is no dispute that the petitioner is holding qualification of HSC and ‘Diploma in Early Childhood Special Education Mental Retardation’ registered with RCI, however, as pointed out by respondents that even considering Government Resolution dated 18^th August, 2004, which was issued prior to the appointment of petitioner, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification to work as a Special Teacher in respondent no.5.

¶40

The required education qualification is certificate of Secondary or Higher Secondary with Specialized Training in the concerned category and registration with RCI. However, qualification possesses by petitioner makes him qualified for the play school or preschool Nursery and not for Elementary Primary Upper Primary School. Therefore, Regional Deputy Commissioner has rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is not qualified for holding the post of Special Teacher in respondent no.5 school.

¶41

wp-8670-16.odt 7/7

¶42

16 We find that the findings given by the Regional Deputy Commissioner are just and proper and it needs no interference.

¶43

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶44

With no order as to costs.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

sknair

Kapil Bhimrao Wadmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Bhimrao Wadmare 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

Vikas Apparao Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Ramchandra Gedewad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Bhikaji Satpute Vs Swarupchand Hiralalji Lalwani and Another

Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Saleem through Gpa Mohammed Junaid Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hussain Khan Nasir Khan and Others Vs v K Gautam and Others

Rakshaben Mahendra Shah and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others