Disposed

Anil Charansingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Higher Education, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2024WP/1794/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 1794 of 2022, the Nagpur Bench directed the Education Officer to decide the petitioner's appointment approval afresh. The court was unsatisfied that the Officer considered the Deputy Director's 2018 observations regarding protected services and qualifications. The Officer was directed to hear the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear by 26-8-2024; Education Officer directed to consider Deputy Director's observations and decide afresh within 8 weeks.

Anil Charansingh Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:8789-DB

¶2

1 WP-1794-2022.odt

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.1794 of 2022

¶5

[Anil Charansingh Rathod VERSUS State of Maharashtra and others]

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri Firdos T. Mirza, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri A.M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

Ms Radhika Bajaj, Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2024

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

1.The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher, sought
approval to his appointment, which proposal was referred by the
respondent No.3-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola, to
the respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division,
Amravati, who has ruled in favour of the petitioner on 9-5-2018 by
making the following observations :

¶12

(a)that the qualifications of the petitioner are
B.Sc.(Maths), B.Ed.,

¶13

(b) that the petitioner was appointed on 23-6-2004 and he is working from the date, the change of Management was effected,

¶14

(c) that as per the roster point and approval order, the petitioner is working on the post which is meant for open category,

¶15

2 WP-1794-2022.odt

¶16

(d) that one post of Assistant Teacher holding the qualification of B.Sc. is reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, and

¶17

(e) that as per the order of the School Tribunal, Amravati, passed on 20-2-2013 in Appeal No.15 of 2011 and the order dated 28-11-2017 delivered in Writ Petition No.1721 of 2013, the services of the petitioner are protected and as such, his services are required to be approved.

¶18

2. After the aforesaid order, the impugned order dated 15-9-2021 came to be passed by the respondent No.3-Education Officer, thereby an observation is made that the petitioner cannot be permitted to join the post.

¶19

3. The respondent No.3-Education Officer, without considering the observations made by the respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Education, has proceeded to pass an order, thereby recording a finding that the petitioner cannot be granted approval on the post of Assistant Teacher, as there are already number of teachers working on the post of Assistant Teacher from open category.

¶20

4. The counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5-Management has stated that after the roster point was approved, as on today, there exists a sanctioned post from OBC category for a candidate who is holding the qualifications of B.Sc.(Maths), B.Ed.

¶21

5.It is also brought to our notice that in Writ Petition No.6623 of 2017
preferred by another teacher, viz. Praful Prakash Shete, the Education
Officer was directed to pass an order in relation to approval to be granted
to the said petitioner.

¶22

3 WP-1794-2022.odt

¶23

6.We are informed that though there is an impugned order operating
in favour of said Praful Prakash Shete since 25-11-2019, no decision is
taken.

¶24

7.It is the case of the petitioner that he is more qualified and senior to
the said candidate, viz. Praful Prakash Shete, and in that eventuality, the
claim of the petitioner for grant of approval should be considered over and
above the claim of the said candidate- Praful Prakash Shete.

¶25

8.The fact remains that the respondent No.2-Deputy Director of
Education has already made certain observations in favour of the
petitioner in his order dated 9-5-2018. The said observations are not
considered by the respondent No.3-Education Officer while passing the
order dated 15-9-2021.

¶26

9.It is the claim of the petitioner that said Praful Prakash Shete in Writ
Petition No.6623 of 2017 is junior and less qualified.

¶27

10.In such eventuality, it is for the respondent No.3-Education Officer
to consider the issue of grant of approval having regard to the date of
appointment, the qualifications and the existence of vacancy, particularly
keeping in view the observations made by the Deputy Director of
Education in his order dated 9-5-2018.

¶28

11.That being so, we permit the petitioner to appear before the
respondent No.3-Education Officer on26-8-2024, who is directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner afresh having regard to the order
passed in Writ Petition No.6623 of 2017 on 25-11-2019 and the
observations made by the Deputy Director of Education in the order

¶29

4 WP-1794-2022.odt

¶30

dated 9-5-2018 in regard to the qualifications and the existence of
vacancy.

¶31

12.Let the order be passed by the respondent No.3-Education Officer
and communicated to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from
the date of appearance of the petitioner before the said Authority.

¶32

13.With the above observations and directions, the petition stands
disposed of. No costs.

¶33

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶34

LANJEWAR

Anil Charansingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Higher Education, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Charansingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Higher Education, Mumbai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Arogya Vikas Bahuudeshiya Sanstha, through Secretary Mr. Ajay Madhukarrao Hanumante Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Higher and Technical Education Dept. Mumbai and or

M/S Abhinav Seeds Company through Partner Arun Kisanrao Wagh Vs the Union of India through Finance Minister and Others

Shivaja Baliram Tomake and Others Vs the District Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Yashwant Wasudeo Raut and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Planning, Mumbai and Another

Saurabh Motiramji Tathod Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, for Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.