1
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.6023 OF 2010
Mandakini Murlidhar Karale,
Age 42 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Pratik Bungalow, Behind
Mahalaxmi Garden, Savedi Road,
Ahmednagar, Tq. and Dist.
Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal
Secretary, School Education
Department, Maharashtra State,
Manatralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary & Higher Secondary,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Division, Pune.
4. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar.
5. Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha
Vidya Prasarak Samaj,Laltaki
Road, Ahmednagar,through its
Secretary.
6. New Arts, Commerce and
Science Junior College,
Ahmednagar, through its
Principal. ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
2
...
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior advocate holding for
Mr.R.L.Kute, Mr.P.S.Dighe, advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6044 OF 2010
Usha Sadashiv Dalimbkar,
Aged 47 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Dwarka Complex, Agarkar
Mala, Shivneri Chowk,
Station Road, Ahmednagar,
Tq. and Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal
Secretary, School Education
Department, Maharashtra
State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Division,
Pune.
4. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar.
5. Ahmednagar Zilha Maratha
Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Laltaki
Road, Ahmednagar, through
its Secretary.
6. New Arts, Commerce and
Science Junior College,
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
3
Ahmednagar, thorugh its
Principal. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior advocate holding for
Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10475 OF 2010
Hema W/o Jayant Jadhav,
Age 45 years, Occ.Service,
R/o 'Rajas', Plot No.63,
Tambatkar Mala, Near
Mamta Gas, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal
Secretary, School Education
Department, Maharashtra
State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Division,
Pune.
4. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar.
5. Ahmednagar Zilha Maratha
Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Laltaki
Road, Ahmednagar, through
its Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
4
6. New Arts, Commerce and
Science Junior College,
Ahmednagar, thorugh its
Principal. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.P.B.Shirsath, advocate holding for
Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL,JJ.
Date : 04.04.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. The petitioners herein seek permanent approval as full time lecturers from the date of their initial appointment till the year 2002-03 as according to the petitioners they have been granted permanent approval from the year 2003-04 onwards.
2. Mr.Dhorde, learned Senior advocate and Mr.Shirsath, learned advocate for respective petitioners submit that initially in the year 1992 the petitioners were appointed as part time lecturers in Junior College. The petitioners in ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 ::: 5 Writ Petition No.6023/2010 and Writ Petition No.10475/2010 are appointed as full time lecturers on 15.6.1998 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.6044/2010 is appointed as full time lecturer on 15.6.1997. According to the learned Senior advocate the approval is not granted to the appointment of the petitioners as full time lecturers up to the year 2003 on the ground that the appointment was not as per roster. The learned Senior counsel submits that the appointments of the petitioners as part time lecturers are approved by the authority. As the approval was not granted, the petitioners were illegally terminated. They had filed appeal before the School Tribunal. The appeal came to be allowed, directing reinstatement and the petitioners came to be reinstated on 16.4.2003. There was no impediment to grant approval to the petitioners for the said interregnum period and also pay salary. According learned Senior advocate the appointments of the petitioners were after following proper procedure of law and the same has been upheld by the School Tribunal in its judgment. Even the approval is granted to ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 ::: 6 the appointment of the petitioners from 2003 onwards and till date the same is in force and the petitioners are officiating their duties.
3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. submits that the appointment of the petitioners were against the reserved seats, as such approval could not have been granted. As and when the posts became available for the open category candidates from the year 2003 onwards, the approval is granted to them. According to learned A.G.P. the break in service can not be condoned for more than two years. The same has to be referred to the Government. In this case, the break in service is more than four years. The continuity also can not be granted nor the salary can be paid as their appointments are as against the reserved category posts.
4. Mr.Hon, learned Senior advocate for the Respondent-institution submits that the petitioner in W.P.No.6023/2010, as per the roster is appointed from open category and the said post is meant for open category, whereas petitioners ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 ::: 7 in other two Writ Petitions are open category candidates and they were appointed on the posts meant for other Backward Class candidates.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. It is not disputed that the authority has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioners from 2003 onwards and also approval is granted to the petitioners as part time lecturers. The only dispute is for the interregnum period from 1999-2000 to 2003. As is seen from the roster filed along with the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner and accepted by the institution, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6023/2010 is appointed as against the post meant for open category candidate and the other two petitioners are appointed on the post meant for reserved category candidates and from 2003 onwards their appointments have been approved.
6. It is also not disputed that for one year i.e. 1998-99 the appointment of all these ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 ::: 8 petitioners as full time lecturers are approved. When the appointment of the petitioners as full time lecturers from 1998-99 and 2003 onwards is approved by the authority, there is no reason not to grant approval for the period 1999-2000 to 2003.
7. Now it is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioners are as per the roster as their appointments are approved from 2003 onwards and the backlog of the reserved category candidate has been filled in. In view of the above, there would be no impediment to grant the petitioners continuity in service and to approve the appointment of the petitioners for the interregnum period for which the approval to their appointment is rejected. However, the persons who were shown to have been appointed as against reserved posts would not be entitled for the salary from the State.
8. Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, we pass the following order : ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 ::: 9
a) The Respondent authority shall accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners from the year 1998-99 to 2003 and the services during the said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity.
b) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.6044/2010 and Writ Petition No.10475/2010 shall not be entitled for the salary for the said period i.e. 1998-99 to 2003 though approval is directed to be granted to them for the said period. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.6023/2010, shall be entitled for the salary for the said period. The salary bills shall be submitted by the Management to the concerned authority. The same shall be processed and sanctioned accordingly.
c) Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp6023.10
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
10
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
11
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::