Lalitkumar S/O Dashrath Hardule vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sport, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Lalitkumar S/O Dashrath Hardule vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sport, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; termination order dated 24.09.2024 quashed and set aside; petitioner at liberty to make representation for consequential benefits to respondent No.3 within three weeks from receipt of the order; Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's services could lawfully be terminated for not completing the Diploma in Elementary Education by the cut-off date of 31.03.2019, given that the examining institution did not conduct the February-2019 examination and the petitioner passed in June-2019 (result on 28.08.2019). +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the judgment of Ramchandra s/o. Anandrao Tekam (supra), the petition is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner admittedly appeared for the June-2019 examination because the February-2019 examination was not conducted; this was not within the petitioner's domain.

Key takeaways

The termination order of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶¶28
The petitioner may make a representation for consequential benefits with respondent No.3 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Nitin W. Sambre and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.; judgment per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.), allowed Writ Petition No. 445 of 2025 and quashed the termination order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, terminating an untrained teacher for not completing the Diploma in Elementary Education by the cut-off date of 31.03.2019 fixed under the Government Resolution dated 09.02.2016 issued in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Rule 16; limitation till 28.02.2019). The Court observed that the examining institution had not conducted the February-2019 examination, so the petitioner appeared in June-2019 and passed on 28.08.2019 — a circumstance not within his domain — and that termination was effected without any opportunity of hearing. Following this Court's earlier judgment in Writ Petition No.6726/2024 (Ramchandra s/o. Anandrao Tekam v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.), and taking note of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Civil Appeal No.935/2023 (Yuvraj Fulsing Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided 06.02.2023), which granted continuity of service for all purposes but no wages for the out-of-employment period, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the termination, and permitted the petitioner to seek consequential benefits by representation to respondent No.3 within three weeks.

2025:BHC-NAG:5121-DB

1 wp.445.25-J.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 445 OF 2025

Lalitkumar s/o. Dashrath Hardule, Aged about 42 years, Occ. – Service, R/o. Vasi, Post Kadholi, Tah. Kurkheda, District Gadchiroli. ... PETITIONER ...VERSUS...

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of School Education and Sport, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli, Tah. & District – Gadchiroli.

Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, Tah. & District Gadchiroli. ... RESPONDENTS

Mr. I. G. Meshram, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Rugved Dhore, Advocate h/f. Mr. A. W. Paunikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 07.05.2025

JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):-

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The petitioner is challenging the termination of his services

for not completing Diploma in Elementary Education till the cut-off

date i.e. 31.03.2019.

2 wp.445.25-J.odt

The petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher subject to condition of appointment order on the establishment of the respondent No.3 – Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. On 09.02.2016, the Government Resolution was passed in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. As per Rule 16, it was the requirement to appoint trained teachers and time limit was given to complete the training for untrained teachers, who were already in service. The limitation prescribed in the said Government Resolution was till 28.02.2019. The petitioner has passed required Diploma in Education Examination held in June-2019. The institution has not conducted the examination in February-2019, therefore, the present petitioner has passed the examination on 28.08.2019. Without giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondent No.3 has passed the order and terminated the services of the petitioner for not acquiring the required Diploma within the period of cut-off date.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court. This Court has passed the order in Writ Petition No.6726/2024 [Ramchandra s/o. Anandrao Tekam Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.], wherein the Court has reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

3 wp.445.25-J.odt

The learned Counsel for the respondents has conceded that the matter is covered, but as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.935/2023 [Yuvraj Fulsing Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.] decided on 06.02.2023, the continuity of service for all the purposes was granted but has not granted any wages for the period during which he was out of employment.

The petitioner has admittedly appeared for examination in June-2019 as the examination was not conducted in February – 2019. It was not within the domain of the petitioner.

In view of the judgment of Ramchandra s/o. Anandrao Tekam (supra), the petition is allowed.

The termination order of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

The petitioner can make representation for consequential benefits with respondent No.3 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

RGurnule Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/05/2025 10:17:42