WP 541/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 541/2015
Ku.Geeta D/o Digambar Tidke,
Aged 31 Years, Occu - Service.
R/o. At Post-Koka (Jungle),
Tah- Dist- Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Maharashtra State, Nashik.
2. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
3. Swamy Vivekanand Bahuuddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon (Dighori),
Dist- Bhandara,
through its Secretary.
4. Anudanit Secondary and Higher
Secondary Ashramschool, Koka (Jungle),
Tah- Dist- Bhandara.
through its Headmaster. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri S.S. Sharma, counsel for the respondent no.3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 12 TH JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, dated 18.11.2014 insofar as it refuses to grant the approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 15.08.2010.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:55:44 :::
WP 541/15 2 Judgment
2. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent- Management, the petitioner was appointed as a higher secondary teacher on probation of three years on 15.08.2010. The respondent nos.3 and 4- Management sent the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval to his appointment. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the management challenged the action on the part of the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development in an appeal before the Commissioner, Tribal Development. The appeal was partly allowed and by the order dated 03.02.2014, the Additional Commissioner was directed to grant the approval to the appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law. After the Commissioner passed the order on 03.02.2014, the Additional Commissioner passed the impugned order granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 09.08.2012. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, as far as it refuses to grant approval to the services of the petitioner from 15.08.2010 to 08.08.2012.
3. Shri Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Commissioner, Tribal Development had directed the Additional Commissioner to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 15.08.2010. It is submitted that since the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed, the Additional Commissioner should have granted ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:55:44 ::: WP 541/15 3 Judgment the approval to the appointment of the petitioner from 15.08.2010. It is submitted that on 15.08.2010, the petitioner was appointed in clear vacancy and since the post was available in open category, the Additional Commissioner ought to have granted approval to his appointment with effect from 15.08.2010.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, has opposed the prayer made in the petition. It is submitted that in the year 2010, only three posts were available for the teaching staff from the open category and the management had appointed four teachers from the open category. It is stated that the petitioner was excess in the open category and the petitioner could not have sought the approval from 15.08.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed for teaching the subject of Geography and the subject of Geography was not a subject sanctioned for appointment of teachers in view of the circular of the Commissioner, dated 16.02.2001. It is submitted that Geography was included as a subject for teaching only vide circular dated 16.07.2013. It is submitted that though the subject was included in the year 2013, the Additional Commissioner had granted approval to the petitioner's appointment with effect from 09.08.2012. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:55:44 :::
WP 541/15 4 Judgment
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional Commissioner, refusing to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment from 15.08.2010. It is categorically stated on behalf of the Additional Commissioner in the affidavit-in-reply that though there were only three vacancies in the open category, the management had appointed four teachers from the open category and the appointment of the petitioner was in excess. It further appears that the petitioner was appointed for teaching Geography as the main subject and as per the circular of the Commissioner, dated 16.02.2001, Geography was not included as a subject for teaching. By the Commissioner's circular, dated 16.07.2013, Geography was included as a subject for teaching and the approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner even before that date. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot claim the grant of approval from 15.08.2010 as of a right, merely because he was appointed on the said date by the management.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:55:44 :::