Dismissed¶25

Ganesh Narayan Chute and 5 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2025WP/4056/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Primary teachers; seniority from initial date of appointment; trained graduate teachers pay scale; Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979; Government Resolution dated 29.01.2008; modified Resolution dated 19.1.2008; B.Ed. condition; Zilla Parishad Gondia; seniority list dated 04.08.2009; Right to Education Act option; Writ Petition Nos. 4772, 5193 and 5229 of 2004; Writ Petition No. 4785 of 2008; writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; no costs; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Ganesh Narayan Chute; State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved, particularly because the Government Resolution is not considered as per their requirements by the Authority. ¶21

Ganesh Narayan Chute and 5 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order in Writ Petition Nos. 4772, 5193 and 5229 of 2004 is based on incorrect interpretation of the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979 and 29.01.2008 and is no longer good law. +3 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved, particularly because the Government Resolution is not considered as per their requirements by the Authority.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioners' claim that, being trained graduate teachers, their seniority must be counted from the date of entry in service cannot be granted, having regard to the view already expressed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4772, 5193 and 5229 of 2004.ratio¶23
No case for causing interference is made out; the writ petition fails and is dismissed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Nitin W. Sambre and M. M. Nerlikar, JJ.) dismissed Writ Petition No. 4056 of 2009 filed by six primary teachers (Ganesh Narayan Chute and 5 others) against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioners sought (i) a declaration that the judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 4772, 5193 and 5229 of 2004, resting on the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979 and 29.01.2008, was no longer good law; (ii) a declaration that the conditions in those Resolutions — including passing B.Ed. within the stipulated period under the modified Resolution dated 19.1.2008 — were conditions, not preferences, for placing graduates-in-service in the trained graduate teachers' pay scale by seniority; (iii) preparation of a fresh seniority list from initial dates of appointment by Zilla Parishad, Gondia, with consequential pay-scale benefits; and (iv) quashing of the seniority list dated 04.08.2009 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia. The Court held the petitioners could not be regarded as aggrieved: it was brought to its notice that petitioner nos. 1 and 5 had given the option contemplated under the Right to Education Act and joined duties, petitioner nos. 2 and 4 stood transferred to Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, and petitioner nos. 3 and 6 had refused the option offered. The claim to count seniority from the date of entry in service could not be granted having regard to the view already expressed by this Court. No case for interference was made out; the writ petition was dismissed, rule discharged, with no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6442-DB

¶2

1-WP-4056-2009.odt 1

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4056 of 2009

¶5

Ganesh Narayan Chute and 5 others

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

versus.

¶8

State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, .. Respondents Department of School, Mantralaya, Mumbai. And two others..

¶9

Mr. U. K. Bisen, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs M. H. Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 Mr. A. Y. Kapgate, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 (through Video Conferencing)

¶10

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ. DATE :- 8^th JULY, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The prayers in the petition are as under:

¶14

“(A) Hold and declare that the Judgement and order passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4772, 5193 and 5229 of 2004 is not based on correct interpretation of the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979 and 29.01.2008 and the same is no longer a good Law.

¶15

(B) Hold and Declare that the conditions mentioned in the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979 and 29.1.2008 are not preferences but are merely conditions on the basis of which the Primary Teacher who has passed his Graduation while in service can be placed in the pay scale of trained graduate teachers on the basis of seniority, on the condition that they would pass B.Ed. Examination within a stipulated period as mentioned in the modified Resolution dated 19.1.2008.

¶16

(C) Direct the respondents and specifically respondent-Zilla Parishad, Gondia to prepare proper seniority list of primary teachers who have passed their graduation while in service, on the basis of their initial date of appointment as primary teachers and then on the basis of the said seniority list, further direct respondent -Zilla Parishad, Gondia to place the teachers mentioned in the said list in the pay scale of trained graduate teachers, in terms of the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979 and 29.12008 in accordance with the seniority and

¶17

1-WP-4056-2009.odt 2

¶18

further grant them all consequential benefits arising therefrom. (D) To quash and set aside the impugned seniority list dated 04.08.2009 at Annexure-6 published by the respondent no.2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia. (E) Grant such other appropriate and suitable relief in favour of the petitioners, to meet the ends of justice.”

¶19

Rule was granted in the matter as the petitioners were seeking declaration that the judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 4772, 5193 and 5229 of 2004 based on incorrect interpretation of the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979 and 29.01.2008. In Writ Petition No.4785 of 2008 on 25.02.2024 this Court had an occasion to deal with the similar request at the behest of the Association. This Court has noted that if the parties individually are aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, it is open for them to question the same.

¶20

It is brought to our notice by Mr. Kapgate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 that apart from the fact that after the Right to Education Act came into force, the petitioner nos. 1 and 5 have already given an option as contemplated under the same and joined their duties; the petitioner nos. 2 and 4 are transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara; whereas, the petitioner nos. 3 and 6 though called to give an option at par with an option offered to the petitioners nos. 1 and 5, being subject teachers, they have refused to give the same.

¶21

That being so, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved, particularly because the Government Resolution is not considered as per their requirements by the Authority. It is the case of the petitioners that once the petitioners are trained graduate teachers, their seniority has to be counted from the date of entry in service. In such an

¶22

1-WP-4056-2009.odt 3

¶23

eventuality it cannot be granted particularly having regard to the view already expressed by this Court as could be noticed from the prayer clause referred above.

¶24

That being so, no case for causing interference is made out. The writ

¶25

petition fails and it is dismissed as such.

¶26

Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

¶27

(M.M.NERLIKAR, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶28

Andurkar.

Ganesh Narayan Chute and 5 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Narayan Chute and 5 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyanpath Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nagpur, Thr. Vice President, Bindumadhao Deo Vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur

Ranjana Rambhau Kubde vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Kailash S/O. Gambhirmal Sharma and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation, Mumbai and Ors.

Swachh Association, Nagpur Thr. Authorized Representative, Anusaya Chhabrani vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Rajkumari W/O Nandulal Pali Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Belatrodi and Anr.

Ku. Dhanshri Jagdish Randaye Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others