Allowed

Pratibha Sopanrao Kanchale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Aug 2021WP/6820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order rejecting a transfer proposal for an OBC-classified Assistant Teacher from an unaided to an aided post, directing the Education Officer to clear vacancies and process the transfer within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Education Officer directed to confirm OBC vacancy and approve transfer within four weeks.

Pratibha Sopanrao Kanchale Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP No.6820/21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

1008 WRIT PETITION NO.6820 OF 2021

¶5

PRATIBHA SOPANRAO KANCHALE
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Dr. Godbole R.J.
AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. A.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr. S.A. Deshpande

¶8

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 11/08/2021.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

.The petitioner assails the order, rejecting the proposal
seeking approval from un-aided post to aided post in the school.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. Godbole, learned advocate for the

¶12

petitioner and the learned A.G.P.

¶13

3.The petitioner claims to have been appointed on

¶14

unaided post of Assistant Teacher on 1st October 2013.
Appointment of the petitioner on unaided post is approved by the

¶15

WP No.6820/21

¶16

¶17

Education Officer under order dated 15th April, 2021. It is further
contended that the petitioner is transferred to aided post on or
about 1st February 2021. The proposal for approval is rejected on
the ground that backlog of OBC candidate exists.

¶18

4.The petitioner claims to have been appointed from
OBC category. The petitioner has certificate of validity of OBC.
According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, this aspect
has not been considered.

¶19

5.If the backlog existed for OBC category and the
petitioner is appointed from OBC category, then there was no
impediment to Education Officer to consider the same.

¶20

6.In the impugned order, it is stated that there is
backlog of 2 OBC posts. The petitioner claims to have been
appointed on OBC post. This aspect ought to have been
considered by the Education Officer.

¶21

7.In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set

¶22

WP No.6820/21

¶23

¶24

aside. The Education Officer shall confirm the vacancy for the post
of OBC category and appointment of the petitioner on OBC post.
The Education Officer shall consider the proposal seeking approval
to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided to aided post in tune
with the judgment of this Court dated 4th July 2020 in Writ
Petition No.1493/2018 with connected writ petitions. The said
exercise shall be done preferable withing four weeks.

¶25

8. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

[ R.N. LADDHA, J. ]

¶27

[S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶28

ssc/

Pratibha Sopanrao Kanchale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratibha Sopanrao Kanchale 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

Nalini Digambar Gosavi Thr Legal Guardian Prakash Digambar Gosavi Vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and Others

Sujata Vijay Unawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Otherss

Sakharam Vithoba Kasid and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Eknath Walmik Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Another

Meerabai Suresh Solanke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Ashok Tatyaba Kajale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others