Allowed

Rukmin Bhagwan Sawargave v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Sept 2021WP/1337/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a proposal for the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the appointment, clarifying the category of the post and the nature of any post reductions before probation completion, and fixed a time limit for the decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed. The Education Officer was directed to reconsider the appointment proposal expeditiously within four months.

Rukmin Bhagwan Sawargave Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 934-wp 1337-2019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1337 OF 2019

¶4

Smt. Rukmin Bhagwan Sawargave

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. D. S. Mali, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshapnde, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 08th September, 2021.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

.The petitioner assails the order dated 20.12.2018 rejecting the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an
Assistant Teacher. The appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak
is approved.

¶14

2.Mr. Mali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are
seven posts available with the respondent No. 4, which are meant for
graduate teachers. The petitioner is a graduate teacher. Three posts
were meant for under graduates. The post for graduate teacher is never
reduced. No surplus candidate exists. As far as graduate teachers post is
concerned, the backlog of ST category from graduate teachers category

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

2 934-wp 1337-2019.odt

¶17

also does not exist.

¶18

3.The learned A.G.P. submits that the Education Officer has
considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and has rightly passed
the order. The petitioner is at Sr. No. 11 and only 10 posts are
admissible. The seniority list is also placed on record.

¶19

4.We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel for respective parties.

¶20

5.The distinction will have to be drawn between graduate and
under graduate teachers. It is submitted that the school runs 5th to 10th
standard. Considering the same, the posts for graduate and under
graduate teachers are earmarked. The petitioner will have to be
considered from graduate teachers category. The staffing pattern shown
for the year 2014-15 demonstrates that there are seven posts of
graduate teachers sanctioned. The petitioner would be seventh. The
said aspect needs to be considered. The roster is also required to be
considered as to whether the backlog of ST category is meant for a
particular under graduate or a graduate teacher or the same is to be
considered composite.

¶21

6. It is stated that before the petitioner completed his probation one post is reduced. However, the order does not clarify, whether the post

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

3 934-wp 1337-2019.odt

¶24

of graduate or under graduate is reduced. The said aspect needs to be
considered by the Education Officer.

¶25

7.In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The Education officer shall reconsider the proposal seeking
approval to the appointment of the petitioner, on its own merits and
shall take decision in the light of the observations made above,
expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (04) months from
today.

¶26

8. Writ petition accordingly is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

( R. N. LADDHA )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

P.S.B.

¶29

3 of 3

Rukmin Bhagwan Sawargave v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmin Bhagwan Sawargave 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkor Vikram Maske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjivdeepsingh Ranjitsingh Nirh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kavita Ramesh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abasaheb Eknath Solanke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asaram Dhansing Umbre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd Sahfiuddin Mohd Shamshoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ohters