Quashed

Sharad Padmakar Chaudhari and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC2 Aug 2021WP/8226/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by teachers challenging approval of their transfer from unaided to aided posts. The Court quashed phase-wise approval orders, directing authorities to grant 100% grant-in-aid approval where petitioners had over 3 years of unaided service, fixing a four-month timeline for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders granting phase-wise approval quashed; authority directed to reconsider for 100% grant-in-aid within 4 months.

Sharad Padmakar Chaudhari and Another Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 wp 8226.2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

61 WRIT PETITION NO.8226 OF 2021 SHARAD PADMAKAR CHAUDHARI AND ANOTHER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Vilas S Panpatte AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. P. Tiwari

¶8

AND

¶9

71 WRIT PETITION NO.8236 OF 2021 DATTATRAYA PANDURANG KARHALE

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL

¶12

SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶13

...

¶14

Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Vilas S Panpatte AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. A. R. Kale

¶15

… AND

¶16

… 74 WRIT PETITION NO.8239 OF 2021 LOTAN YUVARAJ BIRHADE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶17

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶18

...

¶19

Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Vilas S Panpatte AGP for Respondents/State: Mrs. V. N. Patil-Jadhav

¶20

… AND

¶21

… 76 WRIT PETITION NO.8241 OF 2021

¶22

DATTATRAY SHRAVAN SALUNKE VERSUS

¶23

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶24

...

¶25

Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Vilas S Panpatte AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya

¶26

...

¶27

2 wp 8226.2021

¶28

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE: 02^nd AUGUST, 2021

¶29

PER COURT:

¶30

The proposals seeking approval to the

¶31

transfer of the petitioners from unaided to aided posts are approved however in a phase-wise grantin-aid. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had put-in more than 3 years of service on unaided posts before

¶32

being transferred to the aided posts.

¶33

We have heard the learned A.G.P.

¶34

The particulars of the date of appointment on unaided posts, the date of approval to their appointments on unaided posts and the dates of

¶35

transfer are reproduced herewith-

¶36

W.P. No.	Name of Petitioners	Date of Appointment w.e.f.	Date of Approval	Date of Transfer w.e.f.	Name o the Authority granted approval to transfer
8226/ 2021	1.Sharad s/o Padmakar Chaudhari 2.Narayan s/o Gangaram Patil	24.06.2013	26.12.2014 (P.No.18)	01.07.2020 (P.No.22) 01.02.2020 (P.No.24)	24.09.2020 (P.No.28&33) Dy.Director of Education, Nashik
8236/ 2021	Dattatraya s/o Pandurang	12.11.2012	26.03.2013 15.01.2015 (P.No.22&25)	01.06.2020 (P.No.28)	18.09.2020 (P.No.31) Education

¶37

3 wp 8226.2021

¶38

	Karhale				Officer (Sec.)
8329/ 2021	1. Lotan s/o Yuvaraj Birhade	17.06.2010	24.11.2013	15.06.2019	28.12.2020
	2. Vandana d/o Dharamsing Sonawane 3. Madhuri d/o Bhaidas Patil 4. Vandana d/o Bhalerao Deshmukh 5. Rita d/o Arun Bhairav	14.06.2010 15.06.2012 14.06.2010 21.07.2009	24.11.2013 24.11.2012 24.11.2013 24.11.2013 (P.No.21 to 30)	22.12.2018 15.06.2017 02.11.2017 02.11.2017 (P.No.31 to 40)	23.01.2019 28.12.2017 05.05.2018 05.05.2018 (P.No.47 to 55) Dy. Director of Education, Nashik
8241/ 2021	Dattatray s/o Shravan Salunke	15.06.2015 (P.No.22)	30.08.2016 (P.No.24)	15.06.2018 (P.No. 26)	16.02.2019 (P.No.28) Dy. Director of Education, Nashik (on Honorarium)

¶39

The authority has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 28.06.2016 while granting approval in a phase-wise manner.

¶40

We have under Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1493 of 2018 with connected writ petitions observed that some of the clauses of the Circular dated 28.06.2016 are erroneous.

¶41

In the said Judgment, we have held that if a person has worked for 3 years or more on unaided

¶42

4 wp 8226.2021

¶43

post prior to transfer to the aided post and if is transferred to the 100% grant-in-aid post, then in that case the approval ought to be on 100% grantin-aid post. Referring to the chart above, it appears that all these petitioners have worked for more than 3 years on unaided posts before being transferred to the aided posts.

¶44

In light of the above, the impugned orders to the extent of granting approval in phase-wise manner is quashed and set aside.

¶45

In case, the authority is satisfied that the transfer of the petitioners are on 100% grant-inaid posts and the petitioners have rendered services for 3 years or more as an Assistant Teacher on unaided posts, then in that case the approval ought to be on 100% grant-in-aid posts as an Assistant Teacher.

¶46

The authority shall consider the said aspect

¶47

and take decision within a period of four (04) months.

¶48

5 wp 8226.2021

¶49

We have passed the aforesaid order as the approval has been granted by the authority to the transfer of the petitioners from unaided to aided posts, meaning thereby, that, the authority is satisfied about the seniority, adherence to the roster and the qualification.

¶50

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶51

marathe

Sharad Padmakar Chaudhari and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Padmakar Chaudhari and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary 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

Tushar Devrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Jayesh Infra Thr Its Partners Imtiyaz Khan Sardar Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raghunath Govind Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

V S Sales Corporation Thr Its Proprietor Pritesh Balkrishan Totla Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

V S Sales Corporation Thr Proprietor Pritesh Balkrishan Totla Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Sunitabai Uttam Padvi Vs the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Dhule Division