Allowed

Akash S/O Atmaram Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC29 Jul 2024WP/8107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Approval of a peon's appointment was rejected citing a recruitment-ban Government Resolution and a GR on surplus teachers. The Court held the ban did not apply as recruitment was initiated before the GR, and the surplus-teachers GR applied only to teaching staff. It quashed the rejection and directed grant of approval within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order dated 06.11.2018 quashed; Education Officer directed to approve petitioner's appointment within six weeks.

Akash S/O Atmaram Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:8282-DB

¶2

28.WP.8107.2023.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8107 OF 20 23

¶6

Akash s/o Atmaram Gaikwad, aged about 24 years, Occu. Service, Ward No.3, R/o Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶10

The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.

¶11

Sahakar Maharshi Bhaskarraoji Shingne Pratisthan, Sundarkhed, District Buldhana, through its President.

¶12

Rajmata Jijau Girls’ Military School and Junior College, Chandhai, Tq. Chikhali, District Buldhana, through its Head Mistress. … RESPONDENTS

¶13

_____________________________________________________________ Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for the State. Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶14

28.WP.8107.2023.odt

¶15

¶16

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATED : 29.07.2024.

¶17

JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)

¶18

Heard. RULE . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶19

The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the

¶20

parties.

¶21

The petitioner was appointed on 10.07.2015 in the OBC category on the post of Peon by following regular process. The Management has forwarded a proposal for approval to respondent no.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. Certain deficiencies were pointed out, which have been cured. However, the approval has been rejected on two grounds based on Government Resolution (‘GR’) dated 12.02.2015 and 04.10.2017.

¶22

The GR dated 12.02.2015 pertains to ban on recruitment whilst GR dated 04.10.2017 relates to absorption of surplus teachers.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that GR dated 04.10.2017 pertains to the teaching staff only, whilst the petitioner was appointed as a peon, thus, it does not apply. As regards to the ban on recruitment is concerned, the petitioner has

¶24

28.WP.8107.2023.odt

¶25

¶26

relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Arun Thute Lokvikas Pratishthan, Hinganghat and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2023(5) Mh.L.J. 223 , wherein it has been clarified that if the recruitment process is initiated prior to the issuance Government Resolution then ban would not apply. It is evident that the recruitment process was initiated much earlier by issuance of an Advertisement in the month of December, 2014 and then was continued. Thus, both reasons does not survive. Though it has been stated that the recruitment was not concluded within three months, however the said reason cannot be supplemented.

¶27

In view of the above, we are of the view that impugned order of rejection of approval does not sustain in the eyes of law. Hence the following order :

¶28

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed

¶29

(b) We hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 Education Officer, Z.P. Buldhana.

28.WP.8107.2023.odt

the appointment of petitioner within six weeks from today.

¶34

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶35

Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶36

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶37

Trupti

Akash S/O Atmaram Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash S/O Atmaram Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashra, Thr. Secretary, 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

Mangesh S/O Ramdas Mohankar Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Anant S/O Balkrushna Marathe Vs the Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati Thr. Working President, Dr. Ramesh Godbole and Ors.

India Resurgence Arc Private Limited, Mumbai Thr. Authorised Officer, Akshaay Rao Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. District Magistrate, Nagpur and Another

Ramesh S/O Sampatrao Warekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Vishmeet Transport, Nagpur Thr. Partner, Vikrant S/O Rajkumar Gulati Vs Central Warehouse Corporation, Thr. Its Regional Manager, Washi, New Mumbai

Sublime Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Director, Aavesh S/O Navalkishor Jhunjhunwala Vs Central Warehouse Corporation, Thr. Its Regional Manager, Washi, New Mumbai