Ganesh Haribhau Wavre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

¶1

10judwp 949.2021..odt

¶2

1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 949/2021

¶5

1.Ganesh Haribhau Wavre
Aged about 39 Years, Occu. Service
R/o. Mutthe Lay Out, Behind Bus Stand,
Buldana Tq & Dist. Buldhana.
2.Shrikrushna Sahdev Solanki
Aged about 43 Years, Occu. Service
R/o Ramnagar, Buldhana,
Tq. & Dist. Buldana.
3.Pravin Rameshwar Mule
Aged about 31 Years, Occu. Service
R/o. Birsingpur, Tq. & Dist. Buldana. ..... PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
1.The State of Maharashtra
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-032
2.The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
3.Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh Shikshan
Prasarak Va Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Buldhana, Through its President,
R/o. “Vidyavishwa”, Wankhede Layout,
Buldana, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.
4.Rajiv Gandhi Military School,
Ajantha Road, Kolwad,
Dist. Buldana,
Through its Head Master. .... RESPONDENT(S)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners
Miss. Nivedita P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos. 1 and 2/State
Ms. Pranita Vairagade with Shri B.M. Dafle, Advocates for respondent
nos. 3 and 4

¶6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶7

 CORAM :A.S. CHANDURKAR AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.J.
 DATED:01/04/2022

¶8

SMGate

¶9

10judwp 949.2021..odt

¶10

2

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
counsel for the parties.

¶13

2.The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order
dated 22.01.2021 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary),
Buldhana by which the proposal for grant of approval to the
appointment of the petitioners has been rejected.

¶14

3.It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the staff
approval granted by the Education Officer (Secondary) on 26.12.2013
two posts of Junior Clerk and two posts of Peon were to be filled in.
Based on the aforesaid staff approval the Management on 11.02.2014
sought permission of the Education Officer (Secondary) to undertake
recruitment. Such permission was granted by the Education Officer
(Secondary) on 15.02.2014 and the advertisement proposed to be issued
was also approved. Thereafter on 06.05.2014 the Management
published an advertisement in a local newspaper pursuant to which the
petitioners had applied for appointment. On 26.06.2014 the petitioner
no. 1 was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk while the petitioner no.
2 and 3 were appointed on the post of Peon. The matter of grant of
approval was pending before the Education Officer (Secondary).
Ultimately by communication dated 22.01.2021 the approval was

¶15

SMGate

¶16

10judwp 949.2021..odt

¶17

3

¶18

refused on the ground of the State Government was undertaking the
exercise of revising the policy for recruitment with regard to Military
School. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the rejection of
such approval.

¶19

4.Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners were appointed after following due procedure and in
view of the prior permission granted by the Education Officer
(Secondary). By seeking to rely upon subsequent Government Resolution
dated 04.05.2020 the approval for the appointment of the petitioners
has been rejected. That Government Resolution pertained to academic
year 2020-2021 and the same could be given any retrospective effect.
This Court had occasion to consider somewhat similar challenge in Writ
Petition No. 953/2021 (Laxmikant S/o Bhaskarrao Gondkar and ors. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.) dated 30.11.2021. By the said
judgment, it was held that the subsequent Government Resolution after
appointment of the petitioners could not have been relied upon.

¶20

5.Ms. Nivedita P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the
impugned order. It was stated that with the change in policy the
Education Officer (Secondary) was required to comply with the same
and as there was no vacancy available when the petitioners were
appointed the approval was rightly rejected. No interference therefore

¶21

SMGate

¶22

4

¶23

10judwp 949.2021..odt

¶24

was called for with the impugned order.

¶25

6.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we
have perused the documents on record. The fact that the Education
Officer (Secondary) on 15.02.2014 had granted permission to fill the
vacant posts and the subsequent advertisement was issued on
06.05.2014 is undisputed. The petitioners were appointed by
appointment letter dated 26.06.2014. The Education Officer
(Secondary) however had sought to rely upon the Government
Resolution dated 04.05.2020 in the impugned order. This aspect of
applicability of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2020 has been
considered in Laxmikant S/o Bhaskarrao Gondkar (supra) by this Court
in paragraph 4 thereof. It reads thus:-

¶26

“4.Government Circular dated 24.04.2020 clearly states
that prohibition on new recruitments would come into force
only from the date of the circular i.e. 24.04.2020 and here
in this case the appointments having been made on
14.01.2020, almost three months before 24.04.2020, the
appointments are not hit by this circular and therefore,
Education Officer ought not to have given the reason of ban
on recruitment as per the government circular dated
24.04.2020. Same is true about the Government Resolution
dated 04.05.2020, when it says that during period of
COVID-19 Pandemic no new recruitments should be made.
Here is the case where recruitments were already made and
that too by following the due procedure way-back on
14.01.2020, much before the onset of Pandemic and its
formal declaration by the State. So, the Education Officer
ought not have given the reason of this
Government Resolution as not permitting the grant of
approval to the appointment of the petitioners.”

¶27

SMGate

¶28

5

¶29

10judwp 949.2021..odt

¶30

In the light of aforesaid, the Education Officer (Secondary) can be
directed to re-consider the proposal for grant of approval to the
appointment of the petitioners in view of that decision. Accordingly, the
following order is passed:-

¶31

(i)The order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Education

¶32

Officer (Secondary) refusing to approve appointment of the
petitioners is set aside.

¶33

(ii) The Education Officer (Secondary) shall re-consider
the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the
petitioners in the light of the observations made
hereinabove. If any further clarification is sought by the
Education Officer (Secondary) he is free to hear the
petitioners and as well as Management in that regard.

¶34

(iii)Necessary exercise be completed within a period of
two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The
decision taken on the proposal be communicated to
petitioners.

¶35

7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

¶36

as to costs.

¶37

(SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶38

SANDIP Digitally signedby SANDIP MAHADEV MAHADEV GATE GATE Date: 2022.04.0414:49:14 +0530 SMGate

Ganesh Haribhau Wavre and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Haribhau Wavre and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Department of School 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Panchayat, Katurli, Thr. Sarpanch, Amgaon, Gondia Vs Anil Patil, Chief Executive Officer, Zillha Parishad, Gondia

Priyanka Vijay Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Shakir Habib Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department

Prabhakar S/O Kashinath Ghaiwat Vs the Zilla Parishad, Nagpur through the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Nagpur and Another

Mr. Prakash S/O Vasantrao Rahate and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary General Administration Departemnt, Mumbai and Others

Anant S/O Keshao Bramhe Vs the State of Mha. Thr. the Office of Police Superintendent Crime Investigation Dep. Nagpur and 1