1 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1066/2017
1. Vinod s/o Vasantrao Rathod,
Aged about : 38 years;
Occupation : Service,
R/o Kanta Nagar,
Near Khamgaon Bank,
Amravati.
2. Ku. Sonali d/o Diwakar Vagare,
Aged about : 33 years,
Occupation : Service;
R/o Asiad Colony,
Shegaon Naka, Near Green Park,
Behind Ganapati Temple,
Amravati. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The Education Officer,
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, District Amravati.
2. Shri Dadasaheb Gavai Charitable Trust,
Shyamnagar, District Amravati,
Through it's Secretary.
3. The Headmaster,
Dadasaheb Gavai Vidyalaya,
Malhara, Taluka Achalpur,
District Amravati.
4. The Headmaster,
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya,
Frezarpura, Amravati,
District Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri N. S. Rao, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri P. S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:13 :::
2 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
CORAM:-
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
14/09/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Today, in Writ Petition Nos.5376/2017 and 519/2017, we have taken note of unfortunate situation prevailing in administration of Education Department. In this writ petition, we find a major evolved by this Court on 17th June, 2016 while deciding Writ Petition Nos.6606/2015 and 6607/2015 to protect the teachers being used by the department again to victimize them.
3. In earlier matter, when we came across a communication which reveals payment of Rs.8,50,000/- by that petitioner, an explanation was offered that it is now an accepted practice. We will deal with the statement and situation whenever that petition is again called out, however, events at hand, do not show perhaps any different situation.
4. The permission to recruit 8 teachers (Shikshan Sevaks) was given on 26/02/2014. Accordingly, after following due process, all vacancies were filled in. Six of these eight teachers have also been given approval on 20th August, 2014.
5. The petitioners before this Court belong to socially backward class and their caste certificates were under consideration of ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:13 ::: 3 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt the Competent Scrutiny Committee for grant of validity. The validity has been given to them respectively on 04/12/2014 and 17/09/2014. The petitioners got validity in February, 2015 and in December, 2014 respectively. Hence, after receipt, they handed over to management and the management, in turn, forwarded the same to the Education Department.
6. Their cases for grant of approval were looked into on 30th December, 2016 and on that date, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order.
7. The impugned order refuses to grant approval because of communication dated 01/07/2016. Perusal of said communication reveals that it is letter written by the State Government to all the responsible officers in Education Department in furtherance of directions of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.6606/2015 and 6607/2015 decided on 17/06/2016. There, we have partly allowed those petitions with certain directions and in para 21 directed that :-
"We also direct the respondents that hereinafter no 'no objection' for recruitment or permission to effect direct recruitment shall be granted except with express certification by the Deputy Director of Education of concerned division stating that no surplus teachers to teach the concerned subjects are available for absorption in State. This order shall be circulated by the respondent no.1 to all its Deputy ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:13 ::: 4 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt Directors as also to all its Education Officers and also to all its Managements within a period of 15 days from today".
8. Thus, in those two writ petitions, after noticing facts, Court found it proper to entrust responsibility of giving "no objection" enabling management to proceed further with recruitment to superior officer like Deputy Director of Education. This change and direction has been given effect to vide communication dated 1st July, 2016.
9. These directions were issued by this Court in Judgment meant for general applications were to protect interest of teachers in such contingency and therefore, for future. Respondent No.1 has used that letter dated 01/07/2016 while passing the impugned order to unsettle the recruitment which was done in February-March, 2014. Obviously, this could not have been done. It is more so because six colleagues of these two petitioners recruited in same process were already given necessary approval on 10th August, 2008 itself.
10. We, therefore, get two treatments to same recruitment process. Part of process is accepted as valid and approval has been granted while part of process has been upset because of later directions which apparently have no application.
11. Shri Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader has sought to justify the action by urging that validities were submitted belatedly. It is common experience that verification of caste claim takes ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:13 ::: 5 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt normally 2 - 3 years or at times more. Here, when impugned order was passed, validities were very much in existence. Thus, absence of validity was not the reason available.
12. We, therefore, find that non-existent reason has been invented and used by respondent No.1 to deny approval to the petitioners. We strongly condemn this.
13. We also direct the Secretary of State of Maharashtra to take notice of this and proceed departmentally against the incumbent then officiating who has passed the order dated 30th December, 2016.
14. We quash and set aside that order. The petitioners are given approval on same lines as has been given to their counterparts on 20th August, 2014. Necessary orders in this respect shall be served upon them, within three months.
15. Writ Petition is allowed. We direct respondent No.1 to personally pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of the petitioners.
16. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:13 :::