Dismissed

Babasaheb Haribhau Kharat and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC23 Feb 2024PIL/62/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a PIL alleging that appointing 9 teachers as Taluka Coordinators for a cashier management system violated the RCE Act. The Court found the government action was based on bona fide necessity due to technical complexities and lacked evidence of any adverse impact on the teacher-pupil ratio, thus refusing to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners seeking direction to recall teachers from non-teaching roles were not granted relief; the discharge from the obligation to appoint teachers to a non-teaching role is refused.

Babasaheb Haribhau Kharat and Another Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

PIL-62-202.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:4682-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62 OF 2023

¶5

Babasaheb Haribhau Kharat and Others...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶8

...

¶9

Mr. G. K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP, for the Respondents – State.

¶10

...

¶11

ORDER(PER R. M. JOSHI, J)

¶12

1.Petitioners by this Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) are trying to draw attention of the Court to the
issue of Respondents appointing teachers on deputation

¶13

for non-teaching work in various offices, thereby
defeating the objective of Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘Act of
2009’).

¶14

2.We have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner
and learned GP at length.

¶15

3.Petitioners are the office bearers of Baliraja
Foundation, a charitable trust registered under the

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

PIL-62-202.odt

¶18

Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It is claimed by the
Petitioners that under the Act of 2009 a pupil teacher
ratio is required to be maintained mandatorily and
hence, there is prohibition for engaging teachers in
any non-teaching work. Petitioners claim that after
thorough research, present PIL has been filed.
Petitioners have relied upon the correspondence made by
the Petitioners as well as various outfits of political
parties with Z.P. Jalna relating to the issue. It is
claimed that 9 teachers are performing non-teaching
work. It is claimed that the said act of appointment of

¶19

these teachers for said work is contrary to the
Government Resolution dated 18.06.2010 and spirit of
Act of 2009.

¶20

4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits

¶21

that the issue sought to be raised is of utmost
importance with regard to the children who have right
to get compulsory education guaranteed under the Act of
2009. In order to achieve the said objection of the
Act, it is absolutely necessary that the teachers-
student ratio is maintained at any cost and in such
circumstances, it would not be open to appoint teachers

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

PIL-62-202.odt

¶24

for non-teaching work of any nature. It is further
claimed that as per the Government Resolution dated
18.06.2010 except for the census, emergency services,
election duty, no other work could be allotted to the
teachers. In the circumstances, directions are sought
to call back teachers from various departments of
Government and ask them to join their respective
schools with further direction not to send any teacher
on deputation henceforth.

¶25

5.Needless to say that PIL Petition cannot be
filed casually. It is obligation of PIL Petitioners to
carryout indepth research and conduct detailed study of
the problem/issue sought to be put-forth before the
Court in order to take cognizance thereof. Though
Petitioners have claimed in the Petition about having
undertaken such research, perusal of the Petition
indicates lack of even basic information. Since it
is the contention of the Petitioners that appointment
of the teachers for non-teaching work affects the
teachers student ratio, some material was expected to
be placed on record. There however is no material to

¶26

that effect on record nor even it is claimed

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

PIL-62-202.odt

¶29

specifically as to in which school such ratio could not
be maintained on account of appointment of 9 teachers
as Taluka Coordinators in the office of Z.P. Jalna.
Except relying upon correspondence exchanged by the
political outfits with Z. P. Jalna, no pains are taken
to go to the root of the cause, nor information is
attempted to have been sought from concerned
authorities.

¶30

6.On the other hand, from perusal of the
documents on record, more particularly, report of the
Education Officer addressed to C.E.O., Z. P., Jalna
dated 10.01.2022 it is clear that from April, 2019 a
software Cash Management Product (CMP) was implemented
for the purpose of payment of salary of teachers and in
that connection initially about 106 teachers were
involved in the said process. The report further
indicates that since in the offices of Z.P, in the
Talukas do not have sanctioned posts, to perform the
work of implementation of CMP process, nor employees
of Education Department of Z.P. have competency to

¶31

handle the technical issues involved in the said
system. Hence, it was proposed that services of

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

PIL-62-202.odt

¶34

teachers as Taluka Coordinators should be continued.
There is no material on record to discard this report.

¶35

7.The said report indicates that initially 106
teachers were involved therein and with passage of time
and coordination, now 9 teachers are working as Taluka
Coordinators on the work of CMP system. Online system
for payment of salary of all the teachers have been
introduced in April, 2019 and hence, while interpreting
G.R. dated 18.06.2010, this new technological
development cannot be ignored. It needs to be recorded
that the system introduced for the payment of salary of
teachers is required to be run effectively to ensure
that the teachers are paid salary in time, otherwise
the same would certainly affect their performance,
which eventually would adversely affect the pupils and
their rights under the Act of 2009.

¶36

8.In order to interfere in any decision, its
rationality and bona fides are required to be taken
into consideration. Neither anymala fidesare
attributed to the appointment of Taluka Coordinators
nor we find this action to be lacking bona fides. Thus,
on the basis of material on record it cannot be said

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

PIL-62-202.odt

¶39

that the appointment of 9 teachers as Taluka
Coordinators is unjustified. More particularly, when
there is absolutely no material placed on record in
order to indicate that on account of said appointments
the teacher-pupil ratio has been affected adversely in
any matter.

¶40

9.In the result, we find no reason to entertain
the present Petition. Hence, Public Interest Litigation
stands dismissed.

¶41

(R. M. JOSHI, J)

¶42

 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

¶43

Malani

¶44

Page 6 of 6

Babasaheb Haribhau Kharat and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Haribhau Kharat and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary 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

Sandeep Kumar Indrakumar Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Girish Ganpatrao Shriwadkar and Ors. Vs Cidco Limited and Ors.

K.P.Purushothaman Nair vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Sharad Baliram Patil Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Manjula Biswas vs the Union of India

Smt. Homai Firdous Khergamvala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Tourism and Cultural Affairas and Ors.

Lata Santosh Bide and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Karmayogi Ankushrao Tope Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Government of India through the Secretary and Others

Machindra Maruti Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others vs Pralhad Gopal Falak and Others

Ashok Ramniwas Bora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Sitaram Bhosale and Another Vs Reserve Bank of India through Its Manager and Another