Disposed

Madhukar Narayan Karande v. the President, Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2025WP/10922/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Assistant Teachers declared surplus in a 2016 list challenged the declaration by writ petition. The Education Officer confirmed on instructions that both still work on sanctioned posts at the same school and cannot be treated as surplus. The court declared the surplus communication inapplicable to them and directed consequential orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned surplus declaration declared inapplicable to petitioners; continued service and salary affirmed; consequential orders directed.

Madhukar Narayan Karande Vs the President, Raje… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

WP.10916.2016&WP.10922.2016-J.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.10916 OF 2016

¶4

Datt	atraya Shyamrao Kamble Versus	)	...Petitioner.
1.	The President,	)
	Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and	)
	Krida Prasarak Mandal, Nizampur	)
	Tal. Sangola, District: Solapur	)
2.	The Head Master,	)
	Nizampur High School, Nizampur Tal. Sangola, District: Solapur	) )
3.	The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur having office at Zilla Parishad Compound, Solapur	) ) )
4.	State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, School, Education and	) )
	Sports Department, Mantralaya Mumbai – 400032	) )
5.	Chandrakant Sida Shinde	)
	Age: Adult, Occ. Teacher,	)
	R/o. Vasud, Tal. Sangola, District: Solapur	)
6.	Meenakshi Sahebrao Patil	)
	Age: Adult, Occ. Teacher,	)
	R/o. Dattanagar, Tal. Sangola	)
	District: Solapur	)	...Respondents.
	WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10922 O	F 20	16
Mad	hukar Narayan Karande		...Petitioner.
	Versus
1.	The President,	)
	Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and	)
	Krida Prasarak Mandal, Nizampur	)

¶5

¶6

akn

¶7

WP.10916.2016&WP.10922.2016-J.doc

¶8

	Tal. Sangola, District: Solapur	)
2.	The Head Master, Nizampur High School, Nizampur Tal. Sangola, District: Solapur	) ) )
3.	The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur having office at Zilla Parishad Compound, Solapur	) ) )
4.	State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, School, Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya Mumbai – 400032	) ) ) )
5.	Chandrakant Sida Shinde Age: Adult, Occ. Teacher,	) )
	R/o. Vasud, Tal. Sangola, District: Solapur	)
6.	Meenakshi Sahebrao Patil Age: Adult, Occ. Teacher,	) )
	R/o. Dattanagar, Tal. Sangola	)
	District: Solapur	)	...Respondents.

¶9

****

¶10

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners in both Petitions. Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader a/w. Mr. S. B. Kalel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in WP/10916/2016.

¶11

Mrs. R. A. Salunkhe, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in WP/10922/2016

¶12

Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶13

¶14

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 09^th APRIL 2025

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. CHANDURKAR, J):

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of

¶18

¶19

akn

¶20

WP.10916.2016&WP.10922.2016-J.doc

¶21

learned Counsel for the parties.

¶22

In these Writ Petitions, a challenge is raised to the communication dated 14/09/2016 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur by which the services of various Assistant Teachers were declared as surplus. The present Petitioners are shown at serial nos. 92 and 82 of the said list respectively. While issuing the notice in the Writ Petitions, this Court on 22/09/2016 granted interim relief staying the effect and operation of the communication dated 14/09/2016 in so far as it is related to the Petitioners.

¶23

Today the learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions from the concerned Education Officer (Secondary), submits that the Petitioners are still working as Assistant Teachers at the Respondent No. 1- Institution on sanctioned posts. He therefore submits that as of today the Petitioners cannot be treated to be surplus at the Respondent No. 1-School. He further submits that if the services of the Petitioners are continued at the same school, they would continue to receive their regular salary. The communication dated 07/04/2025 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur to that effect is taken on record and marked “A” for identification.

¶24

In view of this stand of the Education Officer which is accepted, it is declared that the impugned communication dated 14/09/2016 by which the Petitioners were treated as surplus, would not be applicable to the present Petitioners. Needless to state that the Petitioners would continue to serve as Assistant Teachers at the Respondent No. 1-Institution and would also continue to receive their regular salary. The Education Officer (Secondary) to accordingly issue consequential orders of repatriation of the Petitioners.

¶25

¶26

akn

¶27

WP.10916.2016&WP.10922.2016-J.doc

¶28

Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶29

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this judgment.

¶30

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶31

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)

¶32

¶33

akn

Madhukar Narayan Karande v. the President, Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Narayan Karande v. the President, Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

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

Shri. Rangrao Subhana Walvekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Nanasaheb Mane Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Amol Namdeo Kedar Vs the State of Maharashtra through G.P. and Ors.

Ramchandra Jakappa Nandavadekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Dattatraya Shyamrao Kamble Vs the President, Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

The Registrar Shivaji University Kolhapur Vs Tahsildar Officer Karveer and Ors.