Allowed

Shri Nagpur Gujrati Mandal, Nagpur through Its General Secretary and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC5 Oct 2021WP/4230/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order revoking a teacher's appointment due to the lower authority considering irrelevant factors and ignoring relevant vacancies and submissions. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, and salary arrears addressed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27/4/2018 quashed; matter remanded for fresh decision; arrears and salary due for September 2021 directed to be paid.

Shri Nagpur Gujrati Mandal, Nagpur through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp4230.18

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4230 OF 2018

¶6

1. Shri Nagpur Gujrati Mandal, through its General Secretary, Lakadganj, Nagpur.

¶7

1. Umiya Shankar Narayanji High School, Lakadganj, Nagpur, through its Head Mistress.

¶8

1. Kum. Anjali Mohanlal Khare, aged about 38 years, Asstt. Teacher, c/o Umiya Shankar Narayanji High School, Lakadganj, Nagpur. ... Petitioners

¶9

Versus -

¶10

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶11

1. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

¶12

1. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ... Respondents

¶13

Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners. Smt. M. Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶14

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 5, 2021

¶15

wp4230.18

¶16

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) :

¶18

Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶19

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶20

We find that the impugned order dated 27/4/2018 passed by the respondent no.3 is manifestly illegal as the respondent no.3 has taken into account the factors, which are not relevant, to decide the controversy involved in the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents. The dispute is about grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 as Shikshan Sevak, which was made in the petitioner no.2 School, by issuing appointment order dated 29/12/2014

¶21

The appointment of the petitioner no.3 so made was duly approved by the respondent no.2 Education Officer, but later on, the respondent no.3 held that such approval granted by the respondent no.2 was illegal and, therefore, he revoked the approval order by passing the impugned order. Before such revocation, opportunity of

¶22

3 wp4230.18

¶23

hearing was granted to the petitioner no.3 and also to the Head Mistress of the petitioner no.2 School. But, it is seen from the impugned order and also the representation made to the respondent no.3 by the petitioner no.3 that the factors appearing on record and the points raised by the petitioner no.3 were not at all considered by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, the respondent no.3, in our view, arrived at a conclusion regarding the appointment of the petitioner no.3, which was erroneous.

¶24

It is the contention of the petitioner no.3 and also remaining petitioners that there were three posts of Teachers lying vacant in the petitioner no.2 School at the time when appointment of the petitioner no.3 was made and accepting this fact as correct, the respondent no.2 Education Officer had also granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, further submits that appointment of the petitioner no.3 having been made in the year 2014, the staffing pattern of the year 2013-14 was relevant and availability of sanctioned posts ought to have been determined by the respondent no.3 by making reference to 2013-14 staffing pattern and not to the one, which was of the year 2009-10, as has been made in the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the respondent no.3 completely ignored the fact that on

¶25

4 wp4230.18

¶26

account of retirement of one Smt. S.S. Waghmare, taking of voluntary retirement by Smt. V.J. Chandurkar, School Teacher and non filling up of one post of English Teacher, there were already available three vacancies of the posts, which were already sanctioned and one of these posts was filled up by giving appointment to the petitioner no.3. He further submits that all this has not been considered by the respondent no.3.

¶27

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the submissions so made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are right. The respondent no.3 has not applied his mind in any manner to the afore-stated submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in spite of the fact that all the relevant data was placed before the respondent no.3. We, therefore, find that the impugned order is perverse and illegal and hence, the same needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶28

In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27/4/2018 passed by the respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. We also direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner no.3 and

¶29

5 wp4230.18

¶30

also release her salary for the month of September 2021. Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

khj

Shri Nagpur Gujrati Mandal, Nagpur through Its General Secretary and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nagpur Gujrati Mandal, Nagpur through Its General Secretary and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai 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

Kishor S/O Vitthalrao Sangidwar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principle Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Other

Gopal Namdeorao Malasne and Others Vs the Joint Director, Health Services Department, Pune and Others

Khushal S/O Parasramji Bamnote and Others Vs Union of India, Ministry of Housing and Urbn Affairs, through Its Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Mukund S/O Pundalik Pahurkar Vs the Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through the Chief Executive Officer and Others

Bhaskar S/O Janardhanrao Vaidya Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Planning, Mumbai and Others

Amateur Handball Association of Maharashtra, Wardha through General Secretary Dr. Suresh S. Bongade Vs Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, New Delhi through Chief Secretary and Others