Partly allowed

Pranita Namdev Shingare v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC6 Feb 2023WP/449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of four writ petitions involving teaching staff service transfers. Finding identical prayers across petitions, the Court held the petitioners were covered by earlier orders. Consequently, it partly allowed the petitions, quashed impugned orders, and remitted cases to the Education Officer to consider vacancies and reservation implications within specified timelines. No specific

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; concerns remitted to Education Officer with conditions regarding vacancy communication, seniority/eligibility consideration, and reservation balance.

Pranita Namdev Shingare Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 125a129a150a151wp12056o22group

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

125 WRIT PETITION NO.12056 OF 2022

¶4

RAMESH DASHRATHRAO JAMDADE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶6

AND

¶7

129 WRIT PETITION NO.12190 OF 2022

¶8

BALASAHEB MADHUKAR RAUT

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶11

AND

¶12

150 WRIT PETITION NO.448 OF 2023

¶13

DATTA PANDURANG KADAM

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶16

AND

¶17

151 WRIT PETITION NO.449 OF 2023

¶18

PRANITA NAMDEV SHINGARE

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Nitin K. Chaudhari AGP for Respondents 1 and 2/State : Shri P.S. Patil, Shri S.G.

¶22

2 125a129a150a151wp12056o22group

¶23

Sangle, Shri V.M. Kagne and Shri S.G. Karlekar in the respective petitions.

¶24

Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4 : Shri S.M. Gaikwad

¶25

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 06^th February, 2023

¶26

Per Court :-

¶27

In these matters, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have appeared through the counsel and submit that the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2022 in Writ Petition Nos.6249/2022 and 6303/2022 ( Shivaji Kondiba Injewad & Neeta Abhimanyu

¶28

Waghmare vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ), can be passed in these matters as well.

¶29

The learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as the learned AGPs submit that these matters would be covered by the order passed by this Court on 02.05.2022 in Writ Petition No. 3336 of 2021 filed by Patekar Someshwar Rohidas v. The State of Maharashtra and others and connected matters.

¶30

We have perused the order dated 02.05.2022 passed in Patekar Someshwar Rohidas (supra) . The said order is in the light of an earlier order dated 10.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition

¶31

3 125a129a150a151wp12056o22group

¶32

No. 9284 of 2021 filed by Dhanashree Bhausaheb Borkhede v. The State of Maharashtra and others .

¶33

The petitioners have put forth identical prayer clauses in these matters. Prayer clauses B and C in the first Writ Petition No.12056/2022 read as under:-

¶34

“B] By issuing appropriate Writ, order or directions, hold and declare that, the impugned communication dated 19.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 is arbitrary and illegal to the well settled position of the law, and hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside, and for that purpose issue necessary orders;

¶35

C] By issuing appropriate Writ, order or directions, Respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to grant approval to the transfer of the services of petitioner as assistant teacher from the unaided division to the aided division of the secondary school run by the same management, with all consequential benefits, and for that purpose issue necessary orders;”

¶36

Considering the above, we do not find any reason to

¶37

adopt a different view. The petitioners before us would be

¶38

covered by the order of this Court passed in Dhanashree Bhausaheb Borkhede (supra) and Patekar Someshwar Rohidas

¶39

(supra) . Hence, in the light of the directions set out in paragraph 15 of the order dated 02.05.2022 passed in Patekar Someshwar

¶40

Rohidas (supra) , that these petitions are partly allowed . The

¶41

4 125a129a150a151wp12056o22group

¶42

impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the proposals of these petitioners are remitted to the concerned Education Officer on the following conditions:-

¶43

(a) Wherever the Managements/respondents in these petitions have not intimated the Education Officer as regards the available vacancies in their Institutions, such Managements shall forthwith issue communications to the Education Officer, on or before 28.02.2023, setting forth details of the vacancies available with such Institutions.

¶44

(b) While considering the above communications, as also those which may have already been forwarded to the Education Officer by some of the Managements, the issue of surplus teachers vis-a-vis available vacancies in Beed district, based on the seniority and eligibility, will be considered and recommendation of surplus teachers to particular Institutions for absorption, would be considered by the Education Officer.

¶45

(c) While approving transfers from unaided to aided category as per the proposals forwarded by the respondents/Managements, the Education Officer shall consider surplus teachers available and while approving such transfers, would also consider whether, an imbalance in reservation is

¶46

5 125a129a150a151wp12056o22group

¶47

likely to be created in the aided category owing to such transfers.

¶48

(d) As far as possible, the Education Officer shall ensure

¶49

that an imbalance is not created in reservation while approving such transfers to the aided category vis-a-vis vacancies that have occurred in the reserved category on account of superannuation or voluntary retirement, etc..

¶50

(e) After considering the above aspects, the Education Officer shall pass reasoned orders in the cases before him, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31.05.2023.

¶51

kps (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

Pranita Namdev Shingare v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranita Namdev Shingare v. the State of Maharashtra through 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

Rukhminbai Pralhad Somwanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Baliram Ghanshyam Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepika Deepkrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Datta Pandurang Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Digambar Baburao Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Nilesh Ramakantrao Malgar Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others