wp.1442.98
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION N0. 1442/1998
Chandrakant s/o Yeshwantrao Raut
Aged about 39 years, occu: service
Resident of Bhagchand Nagar,
Dhamangaon Railway
Tahsil Chandur Rly, Dist. Amravati. ..PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) Ashok Shikshan Santha
Ashoknagar, Through President
Shri Sudhir Narayanrao Shende
having its office at Deorao Thakre Vidyalaya
Ashoknagar,
Ashoknagar, Tah. Dhamangaon Rly.
Dist. Amravati.
(Amendment carried out as per order
dated 15.03.2017)
2) Shri Narsing Shamrao Dafle
aged about 45 years, occu: service
R/o C/o Ashok Vidyalaya,
Juna Dhamangaon
Tq. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.
3) The Education Officer (Sec)
Zilla Parishad, Armavati.
4) Ashok Shikshan Sanstha,
Tiwsa, Dist.Amravati
Through its Administrator
Mr. Shivanand Narayan Dutonde
(Amended as per order dated 23.1.2015) ..RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:50 :::
wp.1442.98
2
...................................................................................................................
Dr.Anajan De, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent no.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 06 th July, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) This petition challenges the order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Amravati, cancelling the approval dated 6.3.1997 granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster of Ashok Vidyalaya, Old Dhamangaon, run by respondent no.1-Sanstha.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school which was not receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. A separate seniority list of teachers in such school was maintained in which the petitioner was the seniormost employee. As per the Government Resolution dated 29.6.1981, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 25.12.1990. The petitioner worked on the post of Headmaster till 6.4.1998 when the ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:50 ::: wp.1442.98 3 Education Officer by the impugned order, determined that the petitioner was not the senior-most employee but, one N.S.Dafle, the respondent no.2, was senior to the petitioner and hence the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. It is also not in dispute that Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder, came into force with effect from 16th July, 1981. The statutory rules contemplate framing of a common seniority list of the employees working in all the schools run by the same society and the promotions were required to be made on the basis of such seniority list, to the post of Headmaster. The Government Resolution dated 29th June,1981 directing maintenance of a separate seniority list of teachers working in non-aided schools lost its significance. As a result, in Writ Petition No.517/1993 decided by this Court, the Government Resolution dated 29th June 1981, was set aside.
4. Dr. Anajan De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner would not be the senior- most employee/Assistant Teacher if combined seniority list of aided and ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:50 ::: wp.1442.98 4 non-aided employees working in the schools run by the same management, is to be operated. He, however, placed heavy reliance upon the Circular issued by the State Government of 8th November, 1994 implementing the decision of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 517/1993 by which the Government cancelled the circular issued on 29th June, 1981 and made it clear in Clause No.5 that all appointments made in recognised non-aided secondary schools by way of promotion prior to it, shall not be disturbed on the ground that combined seniority list is required to be maintained. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to protection under clause (5) and his promotion should not have been disturbed. The learned counsel further submits that the claim of respondent no.2 for promotion to the post of Headmaster is required to be rejected as a stale claim.
5. In our view, the Government Resolution dated 29th June, 1981 became inoperative in view of coming into force of MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder which prescribes the guidelines for preparation of seniority list exactly contrary to one which were laid down in Government Resolution dated 29th June, 1981. The petitioner could not have therefore been promoted to the post of Headmaster by ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:50 ::: wp.1442.98 5 acting on the basis of the said Government Resolution on 25.12.1990 i.e. much after coming into force of the said Act and the Rules.
6. We find that several petitions were filed in this respect before this Court and one of which was Writ Petition No.3548/1994 filed by the petitioner claiming grant of approval to his appointment as Headmaster and disposed of by this Court on 25th July 1995. After disposal of this petition, the petitioner was granted approval by the Education Officer vide his communication dated 21.11.1995 and that was the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3796/1997 by the respondent no.2. This Court set aside the said approval on 21.01.1998 and directed consideration of the matter after hearing the respondent no.2. Accordingly, after hearing the parties the order impugned dated 6.4.1998 has been passed. We find reference to some other decisions in the documents placed on record. Be that as it may, what we wanted to show is that, the claim of the respondent no.2 cannot be considered as a stale claim and a challenge to the promotion of the petitioner remained alive till filing of this petition.
7. We are informed that the petitioner has worked on the post ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:50 ::: wp.1442.98 6 of Headmaster from 25.12.1990 to 16.4.1998. However, we are unable to notice the future period for which he was working as Headmaster. We would therefore like to make it clear that there shall be no recovery from the salary of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster for the period for which he has already worked. We have not gone into the question as to whether the petitioner was otherwise eligible for being promoted to the post of Headmaster in terms of the provisions of MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder and if the petitioner so desires, he shall be at liberty to agitate it in appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:50 :::