WP 1646&4887/11 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1646/2011
1. Navprabhat Shikshan Sanstha, Warthi,
having Regn. No.F-59 (Bhandara),
through its President, Ramlal Tikaram
Choudhary.
2. Bhiva S/o Zingruji Kamane,
Aged Major, R/o Eklari,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
3. Ramlal S/o Tikaram Choudhary,
Aged Major, R/o Bhandara,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
4. Nandkumar S/o Rajaramji Lonare,
Aged Major, R/o Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
5. Nilkanth S/o Baliram Kodape,
Aged Major, R/o Kandri,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
6. Anandrao S/o Tukaram Wanjari,
Aged Major, R/o Bhandara,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
7. Sau. Snehalata Narayan Aadai,
Aged Major, R/o Bhandara,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
4. Kalyan S/o Laluji Dongre,
Aged Major, R/o Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
5. Mahadeo S/o Ramchandra Kamble,
Aged Major, R/o Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
6. Sau. Kamal Balwantrao Bachere,
Aged Major, R/o Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 :::
WP 1646&4887/11 2 Common Judgment
7. Chandmal S/o Damdu Sathawane,
Aged Major, R/o Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
8. Shailendra Charandas Sukhdeve,
Aged Major, R/o Kothurna,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
9. Ulhas Phadke,
Headmaster, Navprabhat High School,
R/o LIC MHADA Colony, Plot No.3435,
Near Sham Kirana, Bhandara,
Tq. & Dist. Bhandara.
10. M.S. Ambade,
Headmaster, Navprabhat High School,
Amgaon (Dighori),
Tq. & Distt. Bhandara.
11. Urmila Singh,
R/o Shahar Ward, Old Tumsar,
Tq. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara.
12. T.G. Hatzade,
Headmaster, Navprabhat High School,
Kanhalgaon, Tq. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
13. Trupti Mahadeorao Kambale,
Aged about 29 years, Occu: Service,
C/o Navprabhat High School, Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
14. Satish Pralhad Dhurve,
Aged about 28 years, Occu: Service,
C/o Navprabhat High School, Amgaon
(Dighori), Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
15. Devendra Baburao Kokude,
Aged about 28 years, Occu: Service,
C/o Navprabhat High School, Kanhalgaon,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
16. Rameshwar Ishwar Koparkar,
Aged about 28 years, Occu: Service,
C/o Navprabhat High School, Kandri,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
17. Sanjog Mahadev Kamble,
Aged about 26 years, Occu: Service,
C/o Navprabhat High School, Kandri,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
18. Rohini Shivdas Fendar,
Aged about 28 years, Occu: Service,
C/o Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
19. Dhansay Ramchandra Malkam,
Aged about 28 years, Occu: Service,
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 :::
WP 1646&4887/11 3 Common Judgment
C/o Navprabhat High School, Kandri,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
20. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
21. Narayan S/o Wamanrao Joshi,
Aged about 50 years, At present holding
the post of Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
Office of Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
22. Manohar Pandurang Waghmare,
Aged Major, Occu: Shikshan Sevak,
Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
23. Nareshkumar Deorao Vaidya,
Aged Major, Occu: Shikshan Sevak,
Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
24. Ku.Pratiksha Natthuji Bansode,
Aged Major, Occu: Shikshan Sevak,
Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
25. Ajay Machindra Nandeshwar,
Aged Major, Occu: Shikshan Sevak,
Navprabhat High School, Amgaon
Dighori, Tah. & Distt. Bhandara. RESPONDENTS
Shri R.L. Khapre, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri A.P. Thakre, counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6.
Shri A.R. Patil, counsel for the respondent nos.7 and 8.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, counsel for the respondent nos.9 to 19 and 22 to 25.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4887/2011
1. Ajay Machindra Nandeshwar,
Age: Major, Occuupation : Service,
R/o C/o Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tahsil : Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara.
2. Shri Dhansay Ramchandra Markam,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Navprabhat High School,
Aamgaon Dighori, Tahsil & District : Bhandara.
3. Shri Manohar Pandurang Waghmare,
Age: Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tahsil : Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 :::
WP 1646&4887/11 4 Common Judgment
4. Pratiksha nathuji Bansode,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Navprabhat Kanya High School,
Warthi, Dist. Bhandara.
5. Nareshkumar Deorao Vaidya,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Nav Prabhat Kanya School,
Warthi, District : Bhandara.
6. Rohini Shivdas Fendar,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Nav Prabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
Tah : Mohadi, District : Bhandara.
7. Sanjog Mahadeo Kamble,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o C/o Navprabhat High School,
Kandri, Dist : Bhandara. PETITIONERS
ig .....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
3. Navprabhat Shikshan Sanstha,
Warthi, Tah : Mohadi, Dist : Bhandara,
Though its Secretary, M.R. Kamble.
4. Nav Prabhat Vidyalaya,
Through its Head Master,
Amagaon Dighori,
Tahsil and District : Bhandara.
5. Nav Prabhat Vidyalaya, Kandri,
Through its Head Master,
Tahsil : Mohadi, Dist : Bhandara.
6. Navprabhat Kanya High School, Warthi,
through its Head Master,
Tahsil : Mohadi, Dist : Bhandara. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri A.P. Thakre, counsel for the respondent no.3.
None for the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 :::
WP 1646&4887/11 5 Common Judgment
CORAM :SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 23 RD AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are interconnected, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
2. By filing Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, the petitioners-some of the recorded trustees, have challenged the order of the Education Officer, dated 26.03.2011 granting permission to the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 to fill the posts of Assistant Teachers. So also, Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 is filed by the employees, that are appointed in pursuance of the order of permission, dated 26.03.2011 and whose approvals were cancelled by the order, dated 29.07.2011.
3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, specially the petitioner nos.2 to 6, claim to be the recorded trustees of the trust along with the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, who are also the recorded trustees.
According to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, in the year 1998, there were 1576 members of the trust. A joint application was filed by some of the petitioners and the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 in the year 2000 for framing of a scheme. The application for framing of the scheme was allowed by the Joint Charity ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 6 Common Judgment Commissioner, thereby permitting the enhancement of the membership fees for the existing members also. It is the case of the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 that a notice was served on all the members in respect of the enhancement of the membership fees and only 166 members paid the enhanced fees and were entitled to retain their membership. It is the case of the respondent nos.5 to 8 in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 that the petitioner nos.2 to 6 in the said writ petition did not pay the enhanced membership fees and challenged the order in the scheme, before the learned District Judge. The appeal was, however, dismissed as the learned District Judge refused to condone the inordinate delay in filing the same. The order of the learned District Judge is challenged by the petitioners in Writ petition No.1646 of 2011, in a second appeal. The said second appeal is pending. In the meanwhile, an application was filed in the year 2003 under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 seeking a restrainment order against the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 from managing the affairs of the trust. Apart from the other orders, that are passed in the said application, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by direction no.3 in the order dated 28.07.2008, restrained the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 from taking policy decisions like recruitment, appointment of teachers, suspension, termination, etc., without the prior permission of the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Before the said order was passed on 28.07.2008, the petitioners on one hand and the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 7 Common Judgment respondents on the other, had claimed that the elections were conducted.
Two rival change reports were filed by the parties. Change Report No.142 of 2008 was filed by the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 and others, whereas Change Report No.968 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner nos.1 to 6 and others. The change report filed by the respondents bearing Change Report No.142 of 2008 was allowed by the order dated 03.05.2014. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Joint Charity Commissioner and the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was confirmed by the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 then filed an appeal before the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge stayed the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The order of the District Judge is challenged by the respondent nos.5 to 8 in a writ petition and in the said petition, an ad-interim order staying the order of the District Judge is passed. The matter is still pending. As a consequence of the order accepting Change Report No.142 of 2008, the change report filed by the petitioners, bearing Change Report No.968 of 2007, was rejected. During the pendency of the aforesaid two change reports, an application was filed by some of the members of the trust under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for appointment of trustees as, according to them, a vaccum was created in the absence of a managing body to manage the trust. The application filed by the members of the trust under Section 47 of the Act was rejected by the judgment dated 02.12.2010. To the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 8 Common Judgment proceedings under Section 47 of the Act, some of the petitioners and some of the respondents were parties. It was held by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the order on the application under Section 47 of the Act that there was no necessity to appoint the trustees as the respondents in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, i.e. the applicants in Change Report No.142 of 2008 were taking policy decisions and were in the management and administration of the trust. It is not in dispute that the order dated 02.12.2010 has attained finality as none of the parties has challenged the same before a superior forum. After the order dated 02.12.2010 was passed, the respondent nos.5 to 8 and others applied to the Education Officer for grant of permission to fill the vacancies in the posts of Assistant Teachers. Permission was granted by the Education Officer to fill the vacancies by the order, dated 26.03.2011. The said order is impugned by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011.
In pursuance of the order granting permission to advertise the posts, the respondent nos.5 to 8 and the headmaster had advertized the posts, conducted the interviews and appointed the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 on the posts of Assistant Teachers. The Education Officer, on an appreciation of the material tendered before him, granted approval to the appointments of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011. On the basis of an order of status quo granted in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, it is stated on behalf of the Education Officer that the order granting approval to the appointment of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 9 Common Judgment petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 was cancelled by the order dated 29.07.2011. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 have challenged the order of the Education Officer, dated 29.07.2011 cancelling their approval.
4. Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, submitted that the respondent nos.5 to 7 could not have, in collusion with the headmaster, sought the permission of the Education Officer for filling the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers without the permission of the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is submitted that by the order dated 28.07.2008, the Assistant Charity Commissioner had restrained the respondent nos.5 to 8 from taking any policy decision in the matter of appointment, dismissal, etc. It is submitted that the order dated 28.07.2008 had attained finality with the dismissal of the writ petition filed against the same and in view of the said order of restrainment, the respondent nos.5 to 8 could not have sought permission from the Education Officer to fill the vacant posts without seeking the permission of the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is submitted that the permission to appoint the Assistant Teachers is secured by the respondent nos.5 to 8 without any authority to do so and in violation of the directions issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by the order dated 28.07.2008 in proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act. It is submitted that in the circumstances of ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:26 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 10 Common Judgment the case, the Education Officer was not justified in granting permission to the respondent nos.5 to 8 and the Headmaster to fill up the vacancies.
5. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Education Officer, has submitted that the Education Officer has rightly granted permission to the respondent nos.5 to 8 and the Headmaster to fill the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers, by the order dated 26.03.2011. It is submitted that the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner in the proceedings under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act clearly recites that the respondent nos.5 to 8 along with others, were administering the affairs of the trust and there was no vaccum. It is submitted that the approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 as their appointments were made by the respondents in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, after following the due procedure of selection. It is submitted that since an order of status quo was granted in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, the Education Officer cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011, by the order dated 29.07.2011. It is submitted that though some teachers are absorbed in the schools run by the trust, still there are vacancies in the posts of Assistant Teachers and no prejudice would be caused to the teachers that are absorbed, if this Court sets aside the order of cancellation of the approval, dated 29.07.2011.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 :::WP 1646&4887/11 11 Common Judgment
6. Shri Thakre and Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and 7 & 8, respectively, submitted that the Education Officer rightly granted permission to fill the posts of Assistant Teachers by the order dated 26.03.2011. It is submitted that the order dated 28.07.2008 in the proceedings filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was wiped off by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 02.12.2010 in the proceedings filed under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, for appoinment of trustees. It is stated that it is categorically held by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the order dated 02.12.2010 in the proceedings under Section 47 of the Act, that the respondent nos.4 to 8 along with the other members on the managing committee, as per Change Report Enquiry no.142 of 2008, were in the management and were administering the affairs of the trust. It is submitted that the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, dated 28.07.2008 was wiped off by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 02.12.2010 in the proceedings under Section 47 of the Act. It is submitted that a judgment-order in the proceedings under Section 47 of the Act partakes the character of a decree and it, therefore, cannot be said by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 that the respondent nos.5 to 8 and some others were not in the management of the trust, when the permission was granted by the Education Officer to fill the posts of Assistant Teachers by the order ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 12 Common Judgment dated 26.03.2011. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011. It is submitted that the relief may be granted to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011.
7. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011, has supported the order of the Education Officer, dated 26.03.2011 granting permission. It is stated that the petitioners cannot be deprived of the approval of their services, specially when their appointment is made after following the due procedure for appointment. It is submitted that the order cancelling the approval, dated 29.07.2011 is liable to be set aside, specially when the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 were not heard when the order cancelling their approval was passed on 29.07.2011.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the various orders passed by the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, it appears that the prayers made in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, cannot be granted and the order of the Education Officer granting permission to the management to advertise the posts of Assistant Teachers, cannot be set aside. Originally, the petitioner nos.2 to 6 and the respondent nos.5 to 8 were the recorded trustees of the trust. There were rival factions in the management and the petitioner nos.2 to 6 belong to one faction and the respondent nos.5 to 8 belong to ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 13 Common Judgment the other. In the scheme proceedings, certain orders were passed, with which we are not concerned in these writ petitions. We are only concerned with the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the proceedings filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 under Section 41-A of the Act for a direction against the respondent nos.5 to 8 from managing the affairs of the trust. In the said proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act, by an order dated 28.07.2008, the Assistant Charity Commissioner had restrained the respondent nos.5 to 8 from taking any policy decision in the matter of appointment, termination, etc., without the permission of the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Just before the passing of the order, dated 28.07.2008 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, two rival change reports were filed, one by the petitioners bearing Change Report No.968 of 2007 and the other by the respondent nos.5 to 8 and others bearing Change Report No.142 of 2008. During the pendency of these change reports, an application was filed by some interested members under Section 47 of the Act for appointment of trustees, as according to them, a vaccum was created as there was no legal body to manage the affairs of the trust. To the application under Section 47 of the Act, some of the petitioners and some of the respondents to Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 were parties. In these proceedings, the Joint Charity Commissioner, held by the order dated 02.12.2010 that the respondent nos.5 to 8 and some other trustees were managing the affairs of the trust and there was no vaccum. With ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 14 Common Judgment the aforesaid observations, the Joint Charity Commissioner had dismissed the application under Section 47 of the Act for appointment of trustees by the order dated 02.12.2010. The said order has attained finality as none of the parties has challenged the same before the superior forum. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.5 to 8 that the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, dated 28.07.2008 was wifed off by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 02.12.2010. The Joint Charity Commissioner had categorically referred to the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, dated 28.07.2008 in the proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act and proceeded to hold that the respondent nos.5 to 8 and some others that were elected as per Change Report No.142 of 2008, are managing and administering the affairs of the trust. In pursuance of the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 02.12.2010 to the aforesaid effect, there was no hindrance in the path of the respondent nos.5 to 8 and the other managing trustees that were elected as per Change Report No.142 of 2008, in seeking permission of the Education Officer to fill the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers by publishing an advertisement. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Education Officer, dated 26.03.2011 granting permission to the respondent nos.5 to 8 as also the headmaster to fill the vacant posts. It is not in dispute that the vacant posts are filled after issuance of an advertisement. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 were ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 15 Common Judgment appointed in pursuance of their selection. Approval was also granted to their appointment, however, in view of the order of status quo granted in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011, the Education officer, hurriedly cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioners in Writ petition No.4887 of 2011, by the order dated 29.07.2011. It is not disputed by the Education officer that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 are appointed in clear vacancies after following the due procedure of selection. If that is so, the Education Officer could not have cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioners in Writ petition No.4887 of 2011 only on the basis of the order of status quo in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011. The Education officer should have at least heard the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 before cancelling their appointments.
The Education Officer has not granted hearing to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 before cancelling the approval to their appointments. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Education Officer, dated 28.03.2011 granting permission for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the vacant posts.
The order cancelling the approval to the appointment of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 is bad in law, as the petitioners in Writ petition No.4887 of 2011 were not heard before their approval was cancelled. Even otherwise, in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality in the appointment of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 and the respondent-Education officer could not have ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 ::: WP 1646&4887/11 16 Common Judgment cancelled the approval to their appointment only on the basis of an order of status quo passed in Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011. We find that though some Assistant Teachers are absorbed by an order of the Education Officer in the schools run by the trust, their absorption would not be affected, by this judgment as it is clearly stated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Education officer that some posts of Assistant Teachers would remain vacant even after accommodating the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 as also the absorbed teachers.
9. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, Writ Petition No.1646 of 2011 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 is allowed. The order cancelling the approval to the appointment of petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011, dated 29.07.2011 is hereby set aside. The respondent nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 are directed to release the arrears of salary to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011 within two months and pay the monthly salary to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4887 of 2011, regularly.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 :::
WP 1646&4887/11 17 Common Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 25.08.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:24:27 :::