Allowed

Shilpa Arunrao Dahatonde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Aug 2019WP/8716/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench of two judges quashed orders rejecting proposals for transferring petitioners from unaided to aided posts. The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the scheme within four months, relying on a prior judgment, and noted management's compliance obligations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Education Officer to reconsider proposal within four months; Management to comply with requirements.

Shilpa Arunrao Dahatonde Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1082to1085.WP.8716.19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1082 WRIT PETITION NO.8716 OF 2019

¶4

SHILPA ARUNRAO DAHATONDE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chaudhari Nitin K

¶8

AGP for Respondent: Mr. P.S. Patil

¶9

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in all connected matters : Mr. Yogesh A. Dahatonda

¶10

AND

¶11

1083 WRIT PETITION NO.8717 OF 2019

¶12

SUREKHA VITTHAL NAVALE

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶15

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chaudhari Nitin K AGP for Respondent : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar

¶16

AND

¶17

1084 WRIT PETITION NO.8724 OF 2019

¶18

SHITAL SAMBHAJIRAO SHIRSAT

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶21

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chaudhari Nitin K AGP for Respondent : Mr. K.B. Jadhavar

¶22

AND

¶23

1/3

¶24

1082to1085.WP.8716.19.odt

¶25

1085 WRIT PETITION NO.8725 OF 2019

¶26

MAHENDRA KARBHARI THITE

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶29

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chaudhari Nitin K AGP for Respondent : Mr. S.N. Morampalle

¶30

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶31

DATE : 16/08/2019

¶32

PER COURT :

¶33

The proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the petitioners from unaided to aided post are rejected.

¶34

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the judgment and order dated 04.07.2019, in Writ Petition No. 1493/2018 with connected writ petitions, we have held that some of the clauses of the circular dated 28.6.2016 would be inoperative. In para 23 of the said judgment we observed thus:-

¶35

Upon confirming about the adherence to the seniority list that is those who are transferred to aided post are senior most amongst those working on unaided post and that the roster is maintained, so also their appointments are approved on unaided post, the Education Officer shall grant approvals to their appointments. If the assistant teachers who have been transferred from unaided to aided posts had

¶36

2/3

¶37

1082to1085.WP.8716.19.odt

¶38

not completed three years while working on unaided post, then they will be granted approvals as Shikshan Sevaks for a period they would complete three years from the date of their initial appointments and thereafter as assistant teachers. Of course, upon satisfying about the seniority and roster. However, the Education Officer shall not reject the proposal on the ground of circular dated 28.06.2016 and that there is availability of surplus teachers. The Education Officer will have to consider that services of these petitioners are approved on unaided posts.

¶39

The management is also required to comply with the deficiencies as are pointed out in the impugned order.

¶40

In light of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the petitioners from unaided to aided post.

¶41

The management shall also comply with the requirements as spelt out the impugned order. The Education Officer shall, thereafter, decide the said proposal expeditiously, preferably within four months in tune with the judgment delivered by this Court dated 04.07.2019 in Writ Petition No.1493/2018 with connected writ petitions. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶42

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶43

habeeb

¶44

3/3

Shilpa Arunrao Dahatonde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpa Arunrao Dahatonde 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Nivruti Jagtap and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Waman Jadhav and Another Vs the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Another

Shri Durga Mata Bahu. Krida Va Saikshanik Sansthas U D Pashudhan Vyavsthapan Va Dugdhutpadan Padvik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandrakant Ganpati Sangave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anand Uttamrao Bawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Surekha Vitthal Navale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others