dgm 1 901-wp-159-14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 159 OF 2014
1 Jogeshwari Educational Society
2 Arvind Gandbhir High School,
Jogeshwari (East),Mumbai .... Petitioners
vs
1 The Education Inspector, West Zone
2 The Deputy Director of Education,
Mumbai
3 The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents
Mr. Arvind G. Kothari for the petitioners
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 to 3-State.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : June 30, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.) : 1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 The limited relief claimed in the Petitions is for a direction
to Respondent No.1 to grant approval to one Mrs. Maya M. Pangam as Headmistress of the school .
1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:11:31 :::
dgm 2 901-wp-159-14.sxw 3 It is unfortunate that the Petitioner which is an educational
institute is required to approach this Court even for such matters. It depicts as to how on account of bureaucratic red-tapism, the Courts are flooded with unnecessary litigations.
4 One Mr. E.M. Kumbhar was working in the Petitioner No.2- school under the management of Petitioner No.2. He was superannuated on 30.01.2011. In his place one Mrs. Maya Pangam came to be appointed as the headmistress. The appointment of said Mrs. Maya Pangam came to be challenged by one Ms. Sandhya Mahadik before the learned School Tribunal on the ground of supersession. The learned School Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 held that the appointment of said Mrs. Maya Pangam cannot be termed as illegal.
5 Even prior to the matter going before the School Tribunal, the Petitioner No.1 had made representation to Respondent No.1 for grant of approval to the appointment of said Mrs. Maya Pangam as headmistress. After the order was passed by the School Tribunal, he 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:11:31 ::: dgm 3 901-wp-159-14.sxw same was communicated to Respondent No.1. However, Respondent No.1 informed the Petitioners that his Office proposes to file an Appeal against the order of the School Tribunal and as such, till that period the approval cannot be granted to the appointment of the said Mrs. Maya Pangam.
6 We fail to understand as to what locus Respondent No.1 has, to file an Appeal with regard to the matter pertaining to the interse seniority between the teachers in the Petitioner No.2-school. If any of the teachers is aggrieved with regard to the interse seniority of such teacher, such a teacher can always take recourse to the remedy available in law. As a matter of fact, vide order dated 20.06.2013 in Writ Petition No.534/2015, we have dismissed the Petition of one of the teachers namely, Mahajan Sudhakar Mallikarjun, reserving his right to take recourse to the alternate remedy available to him in law. However, till such time the order of the School Tribunal holds the field, Respondent No.1 has no other option, but to grant approval to the appointment of said Mrs. Maya Pangam as a Headmistress, the same having been held to be valid in law. 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:11:31 :::
dgm 4 901-wp-159-14.sxw 7 We would have considered directing an action to be taken
against the said Mr. Bagul, in showing undue interest in the matter and proposing to file an Appeal. However, we are informed that he is since retired, therefore, we are refraining ourself from taking any action in the matter.
8 In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 22.12.2011 and 30.10.2013 are quashed and set aside. Since Respondent No.1 has placed on record order dated 29.06.2017 granting approval to the said Mrs. Maya Pangam with effect from 30.01.2011 a mandate in that regard would not now be necessary. 9 Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
10 No costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) (B. R. GAVAI J.)
4/4
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:11:31 :::