Partly allowed

Poonam Ketan Vishe (Ms Poonam Suresh Patil) and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2024WP/17258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; writ petitions 17258 and 17259 of 2024; decided 3 December 2024; Coram Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe JJ (judgment per Ghuge J). Petitioners: Poonam Ketan Vishe, Mahendra Sudhakar Bedre and Murbad Taluka Shiksha Sanstha; Respondents: State of Maharashtra (School Education Department), Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Region, Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions (Nos. 17258 and 17259 of 2024) partly allowed; Rule made partly absolute. Impugned orders dated 16th December, 2022 quashed and set aside and treated as notices to the Management;

Poonam Ketan Vishe (Ms Poonam Suresh Patil) and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.12.10 11:13:57 +0530

¶2

Trupti 1 905-906 common order.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 17258 OF 2024

¶5

Mrs.Poonam Ketan Vishe [Ms. Poonam Suresh Patil], Aged 37 Yrs, Occ. Service, R/o. 264, Padma Kunj, Ganesh Nagar, Murbad, Dist. Thane.

¶6

Murbad Taluka Shiksha Sanstha, Murbad, Tal. Murbad, Dist.Thane, Through its President, Secretary … Petitioners versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.

¶8

The Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai.

¶9

The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane … Respondents AND

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 17259 OF 2024

¶11

Mahendra Sudhakar Bedre, Aged 32 Yrs, Occ. Service, R/at Tondalikar Nagar, Murbad, Dist. Thane.

¶12

Murbad Taluka Shiksha Sanstha, Murbad, Tal. Murbad, Dist.Thane, Through its President, Secretary … Petitioners

¶13

Trupti 2 905-906 common order.odt

¶14

versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.

¶16

The Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai.

¶17

The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane … Respondents

¶18

Mr.Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vinayak Kumbhar, Mr.Rajendra B. Khaire and Mr.Aniket S.Phapale i/b. Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions.

¶19

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl. GP with Ms.N.M.Mehra, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 17258 of 2024.

¶20

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP with Ms.Reena Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 17259 of 2024.

¶21

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶22

& ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 3^RD DECEMBER, 2024

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

¶24

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

¶25

the consent of the parties.

¶26

Trupti 3 905-906 common order.odt

¶27

We have heard the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Addl.GP on behalf of the Respondent -State.

¶28

The appointment of Petitioner No.1 was pursuant to an advertisement that was published in Daily Lokmat, Thane Edition dated 14^th June, 2012. The Management sought approval to her appointment on the unaided establishment. The approval was granted, on 24^th April, 2015. She came to be transferred to the aided establishment as a full time teacher, on 1^st July, 2021. The Headmaster submitted a proposal for seeking approval on 5^th March, 2022. Respondent No. 3 identified six deficiencies in the proposal vide order dated 5^th May, 2022. The Headmaster is believed to have cured the deficiencies by submitting the relevant documents on 20^th May, 2022. Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2022 and refused to grant approval to the transfer.

¶29

Vide the impugned order, fifteen deficiencies have been pointed out. The grievance of the Petitioners is that earlier there were six deficiencies when the proposal was rejected on 5^th May, 2022. After the deficiencies were cured, the proposal is once again rejected vide order dated 16^th December, 2022 listing out fifteen deficiencies, out of

¶30

Trupti 4 905-906 common order.odt

¶31

which one pertains to Rule 41A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (wrongly quoted as 41-1 in the impugned order) having been stayed by a Circular dated 1^st December, 2022. Within five days of passing of the impugned order, the said Circular was stayed by this Court at the Nagpur Bench, on 21^st December, 2022 and which was subsequently quashed and set aside vide judgment dated 21^st July, 2023 delivered in Writ Petition No. 8215 of 2022 ( Friends Social Circle, Akola and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) .

¶32

The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners has further canvassed that Petitioner No.2 Management, was not heard when the impugned order was passed. He draws our attention to our earlier orders wherein we have cautioned the Education Officers and the various limbs of the Education Department, that if they raised queries or pointed out deficiencies in the proposals of the Management, they should be granting an opportunity to the Management to cure the deficiencies. What is being done by way of a common practice and which has assumed the character of a habit, is that the Education Officers lists out deficiencies and while pointing them out to the Management, the entire proposal is rejected, rather than calling upon the Management to cure the

¶33

Trupti 5 905-906 common order.odt

¶34

deficiencies, which we have deprecated in many words in many orders.

¶35

Insofar as the ground of a ban due to the Covid pandemic vide the Government Resolution dated 4^th May, 2020, the same has been lifted by the Government by issuance of various GRs, subsequently.

¶36

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶37

The impugned order dated 16^th December, 2022 is quashed and set aside and the proposal of Petitioner No.2 Management, dated 5^th March, 2022 is restored to the file of the Education Officer (Secondary). In order to avoid wastage of time, we direct that the impugned order, which is set aside, be treated as a notice to the Management pointing out the deficiencies.

¶38

We clarify that the grounds at Serial Nos. 13 and 15 of the impugned order, would not be available to the Education Officer for rejecting the proposal. The Management shall ensure that the deficiencies are cured within a period of 45 days from today. If required, the Management can tender its written submissions to the Education Officer, within the same period. The Education Officer shall deal with the proposal on it’s own merits by conducting a meticulous verification exercise, especially in the light of Rule 41A, and thereafter pass a

¶39

reasoned order.

¶40

Trupti 6 905-906 common order.odt

¶41

Needless to state, if surplus teachers are exhausted or are not available, the proposal transferring Petitioner No.1 from the unaided establishment to the partially aided or fully aided establishment would be considered as per the Rules. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 45 days from the date on which the Management communicates to the Education Officer that the deficiencies have been cured.

¶42

In order to prevent further litigation, we are making a mention of the fact that if approval is granted to the transfer of Petitioner No.1, to the partially or fully aided establishment, the Management shall tender the proposal for allocation of the Shalarth ID and further steps in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, shall be initiated by the concerned Officer, expeditiously.

¶43

With regard to Writ Petition No. 17259 of 2024, the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2022 is practically identical. Petitioner No.2 is the same Management. As such, for the reasons set out in the foregoing paragraphs with reference to Writ Petition No. 17258 of 2024, the same timeline and the stages would also apply to this case. Consequentially, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned

¶44

Trupti 7 905-906 common order.odt

¶45

order dated 16^th December, 2022 is quashed and set aside and the same

¶46

shall be treated as a notice to Petitioner No.2- Management.

¶47

Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms, in both the

¶48

cases.

¶49

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE,J.) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Poonam Ketan Vishe (Ms Poonam Suresh Patil) and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Ketan Vishe (Ms Poonam Suresh Patil) and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chetan Gopal Shirudkar vs the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 6 Ors.

Purushottam H. Pachurkar vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Manohar B. Gori vs the Chief Executive Officer of M.I.D.C.

Yogesh Madhusudan Talashilkar and 2 Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and 2 Ors.

Pramila Yashwant Khule vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh S/O Manhohar Mahamuni vs the State of Maharashtr General Administration Dept. and Anr.