Bombay High Court
Mahatma Gandhi Krushak ... vs Anant on 2 December, 2010
Bench: S.A. Bobde, P. D. Kode
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.358 OF 2010 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1159 OF 2007 (D)
Mahatma Gandhi Krushak Shaikshanik
Sanstha, Wadoda, through its Secretary,
Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. ........ APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. Anant s/o. Narayanrao Bokde,
Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Service
(Presently working as Shikshan
Sevak in Gandhji Vidyalaya,
Wadoda, Tah. Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur).
2. Arvind s/o. Ramdas Kuralkar,
Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Service
(Presently working as Shikshan
Sevak in Gandhi Vidyalaya,
Wadoda, Tah. Kamptee, Distt.
Nagpur, r/o 36, Chakradhar Nagar,
Nagpur - 24).
3. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:40:07 :::
2
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, Tah. and
Distt. Nagpur.
5. Gandhi Vidyalaya, Wadoda,
through its Headmaster,
Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur.
6. Presiding Officer,
Grievance Committee for Entertaining
Complaints of Shikshan Sevak,
Mumbai, Camp at Nagpur.
7. Sawankumar Damodhar Chalkhure,
R/o. 2/68, Sadbhavana Nagar,
Manewada Ring Road, Nagpur-17.
8. Sangita Narayanrao Patil,
r/o. 41-C, Ishwar Nagar Chowk,
Gurudeo Nagar, Nagpur. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. K. V. Thomas, Adv. for the appellant,
Mr.P.N.Shende, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and
Mr.N.S.Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Coram: S. A. Bobde and
P.D.Kode, JJ.
Date : 02/12/2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. A. Bobde, J) :
1. Heard Mr. K. V. Thomas, Adv. for the appellant, Mr.P.N.Shende, Adv.
for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.N.S.Khubalkar, Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent no.3.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
dt. 5.2.2010 by which the Writ Petition filed by respondents (herein)/employees
was allowed with the finding that the reason for rejection of approval to their
appointments is incorrect and with a further direction to the Education Officer to
re-consider the entire issue of approval in favour of the respondents No.1 and
2 and so also respondent no.8. The respondents No.1 and 2 were employed
as Shikshan Sewaks in the school run by the appellant/management. Since the
approval was rejected and the respondents were prevented from signing the
muster roll, they approached the Grievance Committee which directed the
appellants to undertake a fresh selection process. The decision of the
Grievance Committee was challenged before the learned Single Judge by way
of present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Single Judge found that the reason given for refusal of
approval i.e. one Rambhau Mahajan, Secretary of the appellant/Management,
was not invited to the meetings of the School Committee is not justified and
according to the learned Single Judge, the Grievance Committee ought not
have accepted this reason for upholding approval. The learned Single Judge
has also found that the selection of respondents No.1 and 2 was in pursuance
of public advertisement whereupon said respondents underwent regular
selection process and were appointed after their selection. The learned Single
Judge has also found that even the Grievance Committee has not found the
selection process to be invalid and has further observed that the defect
regarding absence of said Rambhau Mahajan cannot be the basis for undoing
the entire selection process.
4. Mr.Thomas, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the respondents no.1 and 2 have
not worked for a period of two years. We do not find any material to support
this contention. The Grievance Committee has also not given a finding that the
respondents no.1 and 2 have not worked for a period of two years. Having
regard to the dates of their appointment and the dates on which their services
were terminated, it cannot be said that said respondents have not worked for a
period of two years. Thus, since their appointments have been found to be in
clear vacancy after due selection, we see no reason to interfere with the
findings of the learned Single Judge.
5. It is also contended on behalf of the management that rejection of the
approval and termination of services was justified since there was a defect in
constitution of the Committee. We are not inclined to entertain this submission
from the management which itself is responsible for the alleged defect in
constitution of the Selection Committee. Moreover, it is important to bear in
mind the settled position in law that if the management finds that there is a
defect in the appointment of an employee by reason of some defect in the
procedure of constitution of Committee which is not attributable to the
employee, it is open for them to revoke the appointment order and not to resort
to termination of services of such an employee. Termination of services may be
resorted to where there is any misrepresentation by the employee in the matter
of selection or in his conduct. We are constrained to make these observations
because it is often found that the managements issue appointment orders to
employees/teachers or Shikshan Sewaks and then seek to justify the
termination of services of such employees on the ground that there was defect
in the process of appointments and in a sense, seek to take advantage of their
own wrong. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the
order impugned. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
