Darphale Yogita Jagannath vs The State Of Maharashtra
2011 Latest Caselaw 252 Bom

                                       1                               2327.10.doc


     vgm




                                                                        
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2010




                                                
     1. Darphale Yogita Jagannath
     R/o. 305, Lokmanya Nagar, Aasara, Hotagi Road,
     Solapur




                                               
     2. Kshirsagar Sunita Purushottam
     R/o. 289/90, Hatture Vasti, Laxmi Nagar, Vimantal,
     Majarewadi Road, Solapur




                                    
     3. Patane Rekha Annarao
                      
     R/o. Shri. Siddeshwar Sugar Factory (E Type Colony),
     Kumthe, Solapur                                              ...Petitioners
                     
            V/s.

     1. The State of Maharashtra
     through Education Department (Primary),
     Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
      


     2. Director of Art,
   



     Sir J.J. School of Art Campus, Maharashtra State, Mumbai

     3. Director of Education (Primary),
     Maharashtra State, Pune-1





     4. Maharashtra State Council of Examination,
     through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

     5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,





     Solapur                                             ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2504 OF 2010

1. Maske Ashok Ramhari R/o. At Post Kini, Tal. Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur

2. Hotkar Gangaram Vithal R/o. At Post Nagansur, Tal. Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur

2 2327.10.doc

3. Admane Sandip Ankush

R/o. At Post Wadwal, Tal. Mohol, Dist. Solapur

4. Gaikwad Manoj Margu R/o. Limayewadi, Opposite Bhairuvasti Uday Vikas School, Dist. Solapur

5. Rathod Vijay Gopichand

R/o. 63, Nehru Nagar, Vijapur Road, Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra through Education Department (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Art,

Sir J.J. School of Art Campus, Maharashtra State, Mumbai

3. Director of Education (Primary),

Maharashtra State, Pune-1

4. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3114 OF 2010

1. Survase Vikas Vitthal R/o. At Post Upale (Dhumala), Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

2. Potdar Smruti Vinayak R/o. Opp. Chhatrapati Shivaji High School, Jagtap Nivas, Osmanabad

3 2327.10.doc

3. Gund Sadashiv Vinayak

R/o. At Post Ladole, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

4. Kshirsagar Nilesh Ravindra R/o. Solapur, Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

5. Barabade Rameshwar Baban, R/o. Upale (Du), Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

6. Tupsamudre Santosh Sandipan R/o. Barshi, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

7. Deokar Varsha Shashikant R/o. E-16, Bhagyodaya Housing Society,

Nai Zindgi Road, Solapur

8. Gadhave Gurudevi Sidram

R/o. Solapur, Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

9. Kakade Kavita Jayhind R/o. Yavali, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

10. Metri Sidharay Changonda

R/o. Revansiddeshwar Nagar, Moti Bag, Vijapur Road, Solapur

11. Vangadare Maruti Chandrakant

R/o. Solapur, Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

12. Bhise Dipali Balasaheb R/o. At Post Vairag, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

13. Ghumare Shahaji Mahadev R/o. Darphal (Sina), Tal. Madha, Dist. Solapur

14. Choudhari Kalpana Dnyandev R/o. Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, Dist. Ratnagiri

15. Kashik Pravin Dattatraya R/o. New Palace Chawl, Tal. Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur

4 2327.10.doc

16. Parakhe Swaminath Nagnath

R/o. At Post Manikpeth, Tal. Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur

17. Parandkar Jagdish Vasantrao R/o. Solapur, Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

18. Bendake Anita Sharanappa R/o. Solapur, Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

19. Ubale Pandurang Maruti R/o. Darphal (Sina), Tal. Madha, Dist. Solapur

20. Barbole Ratnadeep Baliram R/o. Solapur, Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur ig ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra through Education Department (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Art, Sir J.J. School of Art Campus, Maharashtra State,

Mumbai

3. Director of Education (Primary), Maharashtra State, Pune-1

4. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3160 OF 2010

1. Kanchan Purushottam Vyas, 159, South Kasba, Datta Chowk, Wankar Wada, Gopalkala Building, Near Shubaray Tower, Solapur

5 2327.10.doc

2. Komal Purushottam Vyas,

159, South Kasba, Datta Chowk, Wankar Wada, Gopalkala Building, Near Shubaray Tower, Solapur

3. Madukar Maryappa Chandanshive 41/404, New Budhawar Peth, Ramapati Chowk, Solapur

4. Dattatray Kalyan More

At Post Sakat (P), Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur, Sakat (P) ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra through Education Department (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Art,

Sir J.J. School of Art Campus, Maharashtra State, Mumbai

3. Director of Education (Primary),

Maharashtra State, Pune-1

4. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3648 OF 2010

1. Chabukswar Tukaram Krishna, Aged 26 years, R/o. C-9, 'Shrikrishna' Shrinagar, Jule Solapur, Vijapur Road, Solapur 413004

2. Paikekari Yogesh Abhiman, Aged 26 years, At Post Kalman, Tal. North Solapur, Kalman ...Petitioners

6 2327.10.doc

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra

through Education Department (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Art, Sir J.J. School of Art Campus, Maharashtra State,

Mumbai

3. Director of Education (Primary), Maharashtra State, Pune-1

4. Maharashtra State Council of Examination,

through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3895 OF 2010

1. Kamble Ankush Kundalik Age about 27 years

41/404, New Budhawar Peth, Ramapati Chowk, Solapur

2. Maske Ram Naganath

R/o. Deokuruli, At Khadaki, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra through Education Department (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Art, Sir J.J. School of Art Campus, Maharashtra State, Mumbai

7 2327.10.doc

3. Director of Education (Primary),

Maharashtra State, Pune-1

4. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2010

1. Uttam S/o. Suresh Raut,

Age 26 years, Occu: Nil R/o. Sapatne (Bhose), Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

2. Ashwini D/o. Chhagan Kadam Age 21 years, Occu: Nil

R/o. Kurduwadi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

3. Pratibha D/o. Sadashiv Nalwade, Age 24 years, Occu: Nil

R/o. Laul, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

4. Sandhya D/o. Ganpat Londhe, Age 21 years, Ocu: Nil R/o. Shriramnagar (Raut Washti) Kurduwadi, Tq. Madhaa, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Department (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

8 2327.10.doc

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P. High Court of Bombay, at Bombay) ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2810 OF 2010

1. Parmeshwar S/o. Satyawan Barbole, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil R/o. Darfal (Seena), Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

2. Sunita D/o. Shivaji Nikam Age 24 years, Occu. Nil

R/o. Ujani (Ma), Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

3. Anita D/o. Ramesh Gaikwad,

Age 26 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Kurduwadi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

4. Smita D/o. Machhindra Kadam,

Age 21 years, Occu. Nil R/o. Kurduwadi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra

through Education Secretary (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

     High Court of Bombay, at Bombay)                           ...Respondents





                                        9                                 2327.10.doc




                                                                          
                               WITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2811 OF 2010




                                                 

1. Somshekhar S/o. Kalyanrao Kalshetti, Age 37 years, Occu. Nil R/o. Plot No. 59, Mallikarjun Nagar, Hatture Wasti, Majare Wadi, Solapur, Dist. Solapur

2. Prashant S/o. Rupchand Kharat, Age 29 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Bhimnagar, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur

3. Laxman S/o. Birappa Mane,

Age 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Mahalingeshwar Nagar, Kumthe, Solapur, Dist. Solapur

4. Rajeshri D/o. Prabhakar Mane, Age 23 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 190/20, Jawalkar Wasti, Budhwar Peth,

Solaur, Dist. Solapur. ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

High Court of Bombay, at Bombay) ...Respondents

10 2327.10.doc

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2010

1. Sachin S/o.Kisan Salgude, Age 26 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Kamati (Bk), Tq. Mohol, Dist. Solapur

2. Sandeep S/o. Bhaskar Jadhav, Age 28 years, Occu. Nil R/o. Shantinagar Apartment, Near New Santosh Nagar, Jule, Solapur,

Dist. Solapur

3. Rahul S/o. Baburao Mane, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 435, Utter Kasaba, Kaikadi Galli,

Solapur, Dist. Solapur

4. Amol S/o. Tanaji Nikam, Age 23 years, Occu. nil,

R/o. Wadala, Tq. and Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

     High Court of Bombay, at Bombay)                           ...Respondents





                                       11                                  2327.10.doc




                                                                           
                               WITH




                                                   
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2813 OF 2010

     1. Nitin S/o. Popat More,
     Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,

R/o. Bangarde, Tq. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur

2. Dattu S/o. Gopal Gore, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Purandavada, Tq. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur

3. Vaibhav S/o. Lalasaheb Lonkar,

Age 25 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Karhati, Tq. Baramati, Dist. Pune

4. Iqabal Nijam Mulani, Age 26 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Shivpuri, Tq. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

     High Court of Bombay, at Bombay)                             ...Respondents





                                       12                                2327.10.doc




                                                                         
                               WITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2814 OF 2010




                                                 
     1. Kulbhushan S/o. Babarao Rote,
     Age 30 years, Occu. Nil,

R/o. Upale (Dumala), Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

2. Siddheshwar S/o. Tukaram Shinde, Age 30 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Upale (Dhumala), Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

3. Ankush S/o. Rama Kolhe, Age 30 years, Occu. Nil,

R/o. Manegaon (Dha.), Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur

4. Varsharani D/o. Ramchandra Nirmale,

Age 25 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 260, Ganganagar, Degaon Road, Solapur, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

     High Court of Bombay, at Bombay)                           ...Respondents





                                       13                                2327.10.doc




                                                                         
                               WITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2815 OF 2010




                                                 
     1. Vishal S/o. Shahu Londhe,
     Age 23 years, Occu. Nil,

R/o. Chincholi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

2. Shaikh Wasim Mahamud, Age 22 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Kurduwadi, Patel Chowk, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

3. Ashish S/o. Prafula Sawant,

Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Kurduwadi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

4. Pramod S/o. Madanrao Patil, Age 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Kurduwadi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

     High Court of Bombay, at Bombay)                           ...Respondents





                                       14                                2327.10.doc


                               WITH




                                                                         
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2816 OF 2010




                                                 
     1. Geetanjali D/o. Guruling Kamble,
     Age 29 years, Occu. Nil,

R/o. 93/13, Satara Road, Isbavi, Pandharpur, Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur

2. Vishal S/o. Vijay Wagmare, Age 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Begumpur, Tq. Mohal, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P. High Court of Bombay, at Bombay) ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2817 OF 2010

1. Jagadish S/o. Vasudev Dange, Age 26 years, Occu: Nil, R/o. Shri Sant Sonaji Maharaj Math, Panadharpur,Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur

2. Amit S/o. Dattatraya Thorat, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Shivane, Tq. Sangola, Dist. Solapur

15 2327.10.doc

3. Pallavi D/o. Dattatraya Thorat, Age 26 years, Occu. Nil,

R/o. Shivane, Tq. Sangola, Dist. Solapur

4. Radhika D/o. Vasudev Dange, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Shri Sant Sonaji Maharaj Math, Pandharpur,

Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary)

Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P. High Court of Bombay, at Bombay) ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2818 OF 2010

1. Sachin S/o. Nagnath Patil,

Age 26 years, Occu.Nil, R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Karmala, Dist. Solapur

2. Mangesh S/o. Mohan Lachake, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Shivaji Chowk, Kurduwadi, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

16 2327.10.doc

3. Nitin S/o. Vilas Satpute,

Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Upalai (bk), Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

4. Ulhas S/o. Prakash Budhabal, Age 25 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Takali, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary),

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P. High Court of Bombay, at Bombay) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 2819 OF 2010

1. Nitin S/o. Kisanrao Kawade, Age 29 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. A-25, Abhimanshri Commercial Complex,

Pune Road, Solapur, Dist. Solapur

2. Balasaheb S/o. Ramdas Lambture, Age 23 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 125, Laxmi Peth, Thobade Wasti, Degaon Raod, Solapur, Dist. Solapur

17 2327.10.doc

3. Guranna S/o. Malappa Bagale,

Age 20 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Kegaon (Kd), Tq. Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur

4. Chidanand S/o. Iresha Manglure, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Barur, Tq. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

5. Sachin S/o. Kisanrao Kawade, Age 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. A-25, Abhimanshri Commercial Complex, Pune Road, Solapur, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2820 OF 2010

1. Pardurang S/o. Ambadas Bagade, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 3198/2,

Opp. Bankat Swami Math, Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur

2. Amit S/o. Mohanrao Thite,

Age 25 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 4028/12, Station Road, Tq. Pandharpur,

Dist. Solapur

3. Sachin S/o. Vithal Devkar, Age 32 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 1022, Nath Chowk,

Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur

4. Sow, Priti W/o. Milind Utpat, Age 32 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. 1339, Gandhi Road, Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Education Secretary (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2. Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune-1

18 2327.10.doc

3. Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1

4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur

(Copy to be sered on Respondents through G.P.

High Court of Bombay, at Bombay) ...Respondents

In Writ Petition Nos. 2327, 2504 , 3114, 3160, 3648 and 3895 of 2010:

Mr. Vishwasrao Deokar with Ms. Ujawala Waychal for the Petitioners

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

Mr. Anup Nikam with Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for Respondent No. 4

Mr. Nitin Jamdar with Mr. Haribhau Deshing for Respondent No. 5

In Writ Petition Nos. 2809 to 2820 of 2010:

Mr. M. Joshi for the Petitioners

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

Mr. Anup Nikam with Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for Respondent No. 3

Mr. Nitin Jamdar with Mr. Haribhau Deshing for Respondent No. 4

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

R.Y. GANOO, JJ DATE: DECEMBER 20 , 2011.

JUDGMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.):-

All these petitions are being disposed of by this common

judgment, as the issues raised therein are identical.

19 2327.10.doc

2. The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is primarily to the advertisement dated 10th

February, 2010 issued by the Maharashtra State Council of

Examination, inviting applications to fill in the post of Shikshan Sevaks

in Zilla Parishads, Municipal Corporation Education Boards (except

Mumbai), Municipal Councils, Cantonment Boards in the State of

Maharashtra by conducting Central Examination Test from amongst

the D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. As the advertisement was issued in the light of

Government Resolution dated 16th December, 2009, the petitioners

have prayed that the respondents be directed to amend / modify the

same, especially in respect of qualification of primary teachers, so as

to include the Arts Teachers Diploma ('A.T.D.', for the sake of

brevity) for appointment as Shikshan Sevaks. The petitioners are also

seeking direction against the respondents to provide for 10% quota /

workload of A.T.D. Teachers for appointment as Shikshan Sevaks in

academic year 2009-10 for primary schools as per the policy. The

petitioners have also sought direction against the respondents to

arrange for separate C.E.T. Examination for A.T.D. holders for

appointment as Shikshan Sevaks as per the syllabus of A.T.D. College

or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners

20 2327.10.doc

to appear for C.E.T. Examination, which was proposed to be conducted

pursuant to advertisement dated 10th February, 2010. These reliefs are

claimed in the first six matters, which are filed by common advocate.

3. The second set of petitions filed through another advocate

are for similar reliefs. In the second set of petitions, the petitioners

have challenged the Government Resolution dated 16th December,

2009, as also the advertisement dated 10th February, 2010 and the

prescribed proforma of application form, in respect of the selection

process, inviting applications for (primary) Shikshan Sevaks Pre-

recruitment Selection Examination, as the same is not in conformity

with the Revised Shikshan Sevaks Scheme, dated 27th February, 2003.

It is further prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to make

specific reference to A.T.D. (Arts Teachers Diploma) qualification in

the Revised Shikshan Sevaks Scheme dated 27th February, 2003, and

accordingly, in the advertisement inviting the forms and in the

prescribed proforma of application form, to enable the petitioners /

A.T.D. (Art Teachers Diploma) holders to apply as per advertisement.

The said petitioners have asked for further direction against the

respondents to allow the said petitioners to appear for examination in

respect of (Primary) Shikshan Sevaks Pre-recruitment Selection

21 2327.10.doc

Examination and to consider / recruit the A.T.D. (Arts Teachers

Diploma) holders on the post of Shikshan Sevaks in the primary schools

all over Maharashtra State, run by the Zilla Parishads, Nagar Palikas,

Nagar Parishads, Mahanagar Palikas, Cantonment Boards and

Government approved and granted schools, semi-granted schools and

non-granted (private) schools (primary schools), as the case may be.

4.

In the first set of petitions, the petitioners have asserted

that, though each of them have passed Arts Teachers Diploma (ATD),

which qualifies them to be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks, yet, they are

denied opportunity of even being considered on the ground that, as the

impugned advertisement dated 10th February, 2010, prescribes the

qualification of candidates as D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. only. In other words,

only candidates possessing that qualification could appear in the

Common Entrance Test for recruitment of Shikshan Sevaks for the

specified primary schools all over Maharashtra. The qualification

A.T.D. is conspicuously absent in the impugned advertisement, even

though as per the policy and the Rules, candidates possessing

qualification of A.T.D. are considered eligible to be appointed as

Shikshan Sevaks in primary schools - both aided and unaided. On this

assertion, they have challenged the impugned advertisement, which

22 2327.10.doc

enables only candidates possessing qualification D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. to

apply for the Common Entrance Test and exclude the petitioners and

similarly placed persons with qualification of A.T.D. According to

these petitioners, the State of Maharashtra has given approval for

nearly 246 A.T.D. Colleges. That presupposes that the students, who

would complete the A.T.D. Course from the said colleges, would get

opportunity of employment on the basis of A.T.D. qualification. These

petitioners are also relying on the Government Resolutions which

provide for qualification for recruitment as primary teachers. Reliance

is placed on the Government Resolution dated 5th July, 1971, which

was amended in the year 1973, making specific reference to A.T.D.

Teacher for appointment in primary school. The Government

Resolution dated 28th September, 1973 specifies that it is necessary to

have a teacher possessing A.T.D. qualification in the primary school.

These petitioners are also relying on the qualifications for the primary

teachers specified in Schedule 'B' of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Rules of 1981"). As per Rule 1(2) of Schedule 'B',

person possessing qualification of Arts Teachers Diploma is considered

as the trained teacher to be appointed in a primary school. These

petitioners have also referred to the inter-departmental

23 2327.10.doc

communications. Reliance is placed on letter dated 15th February, 1994

sent by the Director of Education (Primary), which recognises that

there is 10% workload for A.T.D. Teachers in any primary school run

by Zilla Parishad. It is stated that, as per the new syllabus, Arts is a

compulsory subject for first to seventh standards, and special teacher is

required for the same. There is full-time workload for Arts Teacher.

In the petitions, it is stated that, as per the prescribed syllabus, 60

periods will be available in a primary school and the minimum periods

for full workload of one teacher is only 32 periods. These petitioners

assert that the Government did not express any contrary view on this

subject, but, in practice, some of the schools were refusing to appoint

teacher with A.T.D. qualification. In this backdrop, the Education

Officer, Aurangabad, directed all Head Masters of aided and unaided

primary schools by letter dated 9th July, 1999 to abide by the

Government Policy and to appoint A.T.D. Teacher. These petitioners

are also relying on the communication issued by the Regional Deputy

Director of Aurangabad dated 8th August, 2000 addressed to the

Education Officer (Primary / Secondary), Marathwada Division,

Aurangabad, stating that it is essential to appoint Arts Teacher for 1st to

8th standards and the qualification of such teacher must be A.T.D.

24 2327.10.doc

5. These petitioners have then referred to the letter issued by

the Director of Arts dated 27th April, 2002 addressed to the Director of

Education, placing on record that some schools were not following the

policy and rules in respect of appointment of A.T.D. Teachers. By

this communication, it is noted that steps be taken to instruct all the

primary and secondary schools in the State to appoint Arts Teachers as

per the Government Policy.

6. These petitioners then relied on another communication

dated 18th September, 2002 issued by the Director of Education

(Primary) addressed to the Secretary, School Education Department,

Government of Maharashtra. Once again, it has been emphasised that,

as per the policy, the Arts Teacher to be appointed in the primary and

secondary schools should possess qualification of A.T.D. Reliance is

then placed on the communication sent by the Section Officer, School

Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, calling upon the

Director, Education (Primary) to clarify certain points raised in the

said communication. It predicates that, if A.T.D. Teacher is appointed

for standards 1 to 7 for Arts Subject, what would be the workload

available for such teacher in the school?; secondly, how the work of

one reduced D.Ed. Teacher can be distributed amongst the other D.Ed.

25 2327.10.doc

Teachers; and, thirdly, as per the syllabus of standard 1 to standard 7,

what is the workload for Arts Subject? These petitioners have then

relied on the report submitted by the Director of Education (Primary),

who strongly recommended appointment of separate Arts Teacher for

standards 1 to 7, as there would be total 59 periods workload for Arts

and Craft Teachers.

7.

These petitioners have then relied upon the order of

Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2865 of 1999 in the

case of Ramesh Chandrakant Ware v. Head Master, Shri Sharada

Prathamik Vidyalay, dated 17th March, 2004. In that case, direction

was issued to the State Authorities to grant approval in favour of the

petitioner therein on the finding that qualification of Arts Teacher

Diploma possessed by the Arts Teacher is in compliance with the the

requirement of Rule 2 (1) (j) and 6 of the Rules of 1981. In that, the

said Rules provide for A.T.D. as one of the qualifications for

appointment as primary teacher. These petitioners have then relied on

the letter dated 29th June, 2004 sent by the Director of Arts to the

Secretary, School Education Department. In this communication, it is

strongly recommended that it is necessary to make appointment of

A.T.D. Teachers in primary schools compulsory. These petitioners

26 2327.10.doc

assert that all the respondents have admitted that there is sufficient

workload in the post of A.T.D. Teacher in primary school. In a

communication dated 1st September, 2005, the Education Officer

(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, has admitted that the

Department has granted 17 approvals for the appointment of A.T.D.

Teachers.

8.

These petitioners have then referred to communication

dated 22nd September, 2005 sent by the Director of Arts, wherein it is

admitted that A.T.D. and D.Ed. cannot be treated as equivalent.

Further, D.Ed. Teacher cannot teach the Arts Subject, whereas A.T.D.

Teacher can teach Arts Subject as well as Craft Subject. These

petitioners assert that, thus, A.T.D. qualified teachers are necessary for

the primary schools. Reliance is also placed on the Government

Resolution dated 1st June, 2006, which specifies that all primary schools

should implement and adopt the policy of the Government to teach as

per the new syllabus declared by the Government. It is then stated that

the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, in his letter dated 7th

August, 2006, has noted, on query made under the Rights to

Information Act, that 36 approvals for appointment of A.T.D. Teachers

have been granted.

27 2327.10.doc

9. These petitioners have also placed reliance on another

Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 759 of 2994

in the case of Ankush S/o. Pandurang Ambore & Ors. v. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors., decided on 29th September, 2006, rejecting the

stand taken by the State Authorities that it was not necessary to appoint

separate Arts Teachers in the primary schools, as Arts Subject can be

taught by the teachers possessing D.Ed. Qualification. The Court was

of the opinion that such a stand would act counter to the provisions of

the Rules of 1981. In that, Schedule 'B' of the Rules provides for

qualification for primary teachers. Clause 2 of the Schedule provides

for the qualification for making appointment of Special Teachers

(Drawing Teachers in Primary Schools) and lays down the qualification

of such teachers, i.e., who have passed H.S.C. Examination and

possess Arts Teachers Diploma or Drawing Teachers Certificate or

Drawing Masters Certificate. The said provision also prescribes the

qualification for appointment of Drawing Teachers in Secondary

Schools or that Drawing Teachers should possess Drawing Teachers

Certificate or Drawing Masters Certificate or Arts Master Teacher

Diploma or Arts Master Diploma. The Court went on to observe that

the directives contained in letter dated 13th October, 1998, on which,

28 2327.10.doc

reliance was placed by the respondents, were inapplicable and not

binding on the Zilla Parishads and other educational institutions while

making recruitment to the post of Arts Teachers. The Court also noted

that a teacher possessing D.Ed. Qualification cannot be treated on par

with Arts Teacher in primary school or the secondary school; and as

such, a teacher possessing D.Ed. or B.Ed. Qualification is not qualified

to teach Arts Subject in the schools.

10. These petitioners are then relying on the communication

dated 10th August, 2009 sent by the Under Secretary, School Education

and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, to the Director of

Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary / Primary, which

mentions that, in view of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the

Bombay High Court, a meeting was convened on 13th August, 2009.

These petitioners have then relied on the Minutes of the Meeting dated

13th August, 2009. It is noted that a proposal be sent to appoint one

Arts Teacher in a primary school (standard 1 to standard 7) as per the

direction of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court. According to these

petitioners, in view of the consistent policy and the Rules of 1981, it

was imperative to consider the claim of A.T.D. Teachers. However,

when the advertisement was issued for filling in the post of Shikshan

29 2327.10.doc

Sevaks for the year 2008 in primary schools across the State of

Maharashtra, candidates with A.T.D. Qualification were left out. Even

in the academic year under consideration, the respondents decided to

fill in the post of Shikshan Sevaks in primary schools only from

amongst the D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. Candidates, as can be noticed from the

Government Resolution dated 16th December, 2009. The impugned

advertisement dated 10th February, 2010 is issued on the basis of the

said Government Resolution dated 16th December, 2009, leaving out

candidates possessing A.T.D. Qualification for being appointed as

Shikshan Sevaks in primary schools - both aided and unaided. For

that reason, these petitioners have filed group of Writ Petitions in this

Court for reliefs which have been adverted to in paragraphs 2 and 3

hereinabove.

11. The writ petitions have been resisted by the respondents

by filing affidavit, dated 15th April, 2010, of the Under Secretary to the

Government, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya.

According to the respondents, the affidavit clarifies that, although the

advertisement refers to the name of Cantonment Board, the chart of the

vacant posts, which are to be filled in pursuant to the said

advertisement, are confined only to Zilla Parishads, Municipal

30 2327.10.doc

Corporations and Municipal Councils. It is stated that there is no

demand for appointing primary Shikshan Sevaks in the schools run by

the Cantonment Boards. It is further stated that the Government has

issued circular dated 4th November, 2004. The said circular mentions

that the Course of Diploma in Education is revised, as a result of

which, D.Ed. Teachers are now clubbed with Arts Teachers for

training. For that reason, it is not necessary to appoint Arts Teachers in

the schools run by the Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and

Zilla Parishads. Hence, no Arts Teachers are being appointed in the

primary schools run by the local Authorities.

12. In the reply-affidavit, it is then stated that the Circular

dated 4th November, 2004 was inadvertently not brought to the notice

of the Court, which decided Writ Petition No. 759 of 2004 vide

judgment and order dated 29th September, 2006. Further, the fact that

the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981

have no application to the primary schools run by the local authorities,

i.e., Zilla Parishads, Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, was

also not taken note of. The respondents have, thus, asserted that the

petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled to appear for the C.E.T.

31 2327.10.doc

Examination referred to in the impugned advertisement dated 10th

February, 2010. Thus, at their instance, the question of quashing and

setting aside the said advertisement, merely because it excludes A.T.D.

holders from appearing for the said examination does not arise. It is

stated that, pursuant to the impugned advertisement, 2,03,158

applications were received. The Government conducted examination

as per the impugned advertisement, and major part of exercise of

conducting Central Examination was already completed. The

Government, by the time the reply-affidavit was filed, had spent about

Rs. 2.5 crores for conducting the said examination. Accordingly, the

respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.

13. In the second set of writ petitions, more or less, similar

material has been referred. It is asserted that, in view of the

Government policy, the candidates possessing qualification of A.T.D.

cannot be left out from the process of appointment to the post of

Shikshan Sevaks, as candidates possessing that qualification are eligible

to be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in primary schools. According to

these petitioners, the action of excluding candidates possessing A.T.D.

Qualification from consideration is arbitrary approach of the

respondents and is in breach of the revised Shikshan Sevak Scheme of

32 2327.10.doc

27th February, 2003 issued by the State Government bearing No.

PRI-2002/(3395)PRASHI-1. These petitioners assert that the

Government Resolution dated 16th December, 2009 and the impugned

advertisement dated 10th February, 2010, as well as the prescribed

proforma of application form, in respect of selection process, governing

the applications in respect of (primary) Shikshan Sevaks Pre-

recruitment Selection Examination, are not in tune with the decision of

the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 759 of 2994 in

the case of Ankush S/o. Pandurang Ambore (supra). The

Government Authorities have ignored its own Scheme, which was

bound to affect the development of the students at primary level

studying Arts Subject, and would seriously prejudice and injure the

interest of the petitioners and similarly situated A.T.D. holders who

completed their Arts Teachers Diploma, with a fond hope that they

would be assured employment on the basis of the said qualification.

These petitioners are seeking directions for enforcement of the said

scheme. These petitioners have additionally relied on the Government

Circular dated 15th February, 1994 and 8th August, 2000 in respect of

recruitment of A.T.D. holders in the primary schools. These

petitioners assert that Arts Teachers Diploma is recognised by the

Government and also by the State and is presently valid qualification

33 2327.10.doc

for according approval to the appointment as Shikshan Sevaks in a

primary school. However, the impugned Government Resolution dated

16th December, 2009 and the advertisement dated 10th February, 2010

only permit candidates possessing D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. Qualification to

participate in the selection process for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks.

According to these petitioners, as per clause 18 of the Government

Resolution dated 16th December, 2009 and clause 6 of the

advertisement dated 10th February, 2009, as also the prescribed printed

proforma of the application form, it is noticed that only D.Ed.

candidates can apply for selection to the post of Shikshan Sevaks and

the A.T.D. holders are deprived of applying and ultimately of being

selected / appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevaks. Broadly, on this

basis, these petitioners have asked for the reliefs as reproduced earlier.

14. These petitioners assert that, in Maharashtra State, there

are more than 80,000 primary schools and more than 30,000 A.T.D.

holders, who are presently unemployed. They further assert that, in

Maharashtra, there are about 14,000 Arts Colleges, where A.T.D.

Course is being imparted, and the Government of Maharashtra is

granting permission to open new Arts Colleges. The Government,

however, has failed to ensure that the interest of the students, who

34 2327.10.doc

would study the said course, is duly secured and sufficient job

opportunities are created for them. These petitioners have also relied

on the decision of the High Court in the case of Principal - Our Lady

of Salvation High School v. Rashmi Upadhyay & Ors. in Writ

Petition No. 8313 of 2008 decided on 19th December, 2008, wherein it

was held that the State Legislature amended the provisions of the Act

of 1977 so as to further Shikshan Sevak Scheme. These petitioners

have also asserted that the stand taken by the respondents in the

affidavit-in-reply runs counter to the provisions contained in the Rules

of 1981. These petitioners have, thus, assailed the action of the

respondents in keeping out candidates possessing A.T.D. Qualification,

who are otherwise eligible for being considered to be appointed as

Shikshan Sevaks in a primary school. That action is arbitrary and

affects the rights of the petitioners and similarly placed candidates for

being considered during the selection process.

15. After reply-affidavit was filed by the respondents, the

petitioners in second set of petitions have filed rejoinder-affidavit, more

or less, reiterating that it was not open to the Government to contend

contrary to the opinion expressed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 759

of 2004. According to these petitioners, the authorities cannot

35 2327.10.doc

completely exclude these petitioners and similarly placed candidates,

who possess A.T.D. Qualification, from being considered during the

selection process.

16. During the oral arguments, the counsel appearing for these

petitioners, more or less, reiterated and contended that, since these

petitioners and similarly placed persons were otherwise qualified to be

appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevaks, they could not have been

completely excluded from being considered. Besides, as per the policy,

10% workload is available for Arts Teachers in primary schools. For

that reason, it was imperative to appoint the candidates possessing

qualification of A.T.D., keeping in mind the observation of this Court

that D.T.Ed. Teachers were not competent to teach Arts Subject. That

decision having attained finality, it was not open for the respondents to

contend to the contrary. According to the learned counsel, the

Government decision, as per Government Resolution dated 16th

December, 2009, limiting the qualification of D.ED. / D.T.Ed. for

appointment as Shikshan Sevaks was completely in disregard of the

recognition of A.T.D. holders as eligible trained teachers. These

petitioners were, therefore, challenging the action of the Authorities of

36 2327.10.doc

having left out A.T.D. holders even from considering during the

selection process.

17. After having considered rival submissions, and going

through the pleadings and various documents pressed into service by

the respective parties, we would like to first examine the efficacy of the

provisions of the Act of 1977 or, for that matter, the Rules of 1981. In

our opinion, the said enactment and the rules framed thereunder will be

of no avail in the present case. In that, admittedly, we are concerned

with the challenge to the advertisement issued by the Maharashtra State

Council of Examination dated 10th February, 2010 inviting applications

to fill in the posts of Shikshan Sevaks in the State of Maharashtra in the

schools run by the local authorities, i.e., Zilla Parishads, Municipal

Corporations, Municipal Councils.

18. Indisputably, the Act of 1977 is intended to regulate the

recruitment and conditions of service of employees in certain "private

schools" in the State. That is spelt out from the Preamble of the Act

itself. The Act defines expression "private school". Section 2(20) of

the said Act provides that "private school" means a recognised school

established or administered by a Management other than the

37 2327.10.doc

Government or a local authority. Once this position is settled, it

necessarily follows that neither the provisions of the Act of 1977 nor

that of the Rules of 1981, which are framed under the Act of 1977, will

have any bearing for answering the matters in issue.

19. That would leave us with the various Circulars and

Government Resolutions relied by the parties. After going through the

said documents, we may agree with the petitioners to the limited extent

that, at least, the said Circulars and Resolutions can be relied upon by

these petitioners to contend that candidates possessing A.T.D.

qualification case be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in primary schools

run by the private Managements as well as the local authorities.

Further, the teachers appointed with A.T.D. qualification are competent

to impart lessons in Arts Subject to the students from standard 1 to

standard 7 in primary and secondary schools. In the present case, we

are concerned with the vacancies in the posts of Shikshan Sevaks in

primary schools run by the local authorities, as is noted in the

impugned advertisement.

20. Thus, we may accept the case of the petitioners that the

candidates with qualification of A.T.D. are eligible for appointment to

38 2327.10.doc

the post of Shikshan Sevaks in a primary school run even by the local

authority. We may also accept the case of these petitioners that the

Arts Subject has 10% workload justifying appointment of a full-time

teacher for that subject in a primary school run even by the local

Authorities. However, it is not possible to accept the extreme stand of

the petitioners that the candidates with A.T.D. Qualification should be

equated with the candidates with D.Ed./D.T.Ed. Qualification. Further,

we have no reason to doubt the stand of the respondents that a

candidate with D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. is competent to teach Arts and Drawing

Subjects to the students in primary school run by the "local authority".

We say so, because it is indisputable that the curriculum for the

Diploma in Teachers Education is very exhaustive and also provides

for imparting training to the incumbent in Arts, Drawing and Craft

subjects, in addition to the other subjects. By no stretch of imagination,

however, a candidate with qualification of A.T.D. will be able to teach

any other subject, except Arts subject. Thus, the teachers with A.T.D.

qualification cannot be equated with the teachers with D.Ed./D.T.Ed.

In other words, if a teacher with qualification of D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. is

available, it may not be necessary to appoint separate Arts Teacher

with qualification of A.T.D. in a primary school run by the local

authority.

39 2327.10.doc

21. Indeed, the petitioners have placed reliance on the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of school run

by Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, in Ankush Pandurang Ambore (supra),

wherein it is observed that a teacher possessing D.Ed. Qualification

cannot be treated on par with Arts Teacher employed either in primary

or secondary school;

ig and a teacher possessing D.Ed. or B.Ed.

Qualification cannot teach Arts Subject in the school. In the first place,

this observation may be useful if the appointment were to be made in a

"private school" governed by the provision of the Act of 1977 and

Rules of 1981 framed thereunder. For, the Court made those

observations essentially keeping in mind the provisions of the said Act

and the Rules, wherein it is provided that appointment can be made by

nomination from amongst the candidates having qualification for

making appointment of Special Teacher (Drawing Teacher in primary

school). It is provided therein that appointment can be made on the

post of Drawing Teacher, by nomination from amongst the candidates

who have passed H.S.C. Examination and possess Arts Teachers

Diploma or Drawing Teachers or Drawing Masters Certificate.

However, in view of our finding that the provisions of the said Act and

40 2327.10.doc

Rules have no application to the primary schools run by the "local

Authorities", the decision under consideration will be of no avail.

Moreover, in the present case, the appointments will be on the posts of

Shikshan Sevaks and not Special Teacher. As we are not concerned

with the appointment of Special Teachers in a "private school"; and

that the advertisement issued by the Maharashtra State Council of

Examination is specific to fill in the vacancies in the "post of Shikshan

Sevaks in primary schools run by the local authorities" across the State,

neither the provisions of the Act of 1977 nor the Rules of 1981 will

have any application to such appointment.

22. It is trite to note that there can be no right to employment

as such. The fallacy in the grievance of the petitioners, is that, since

Arts colleges are allowed to be opened and run in the State of

Maharashtra, it is obligatory on the part of the State to ensure that

sufficient employment opportunities are created for the students who

would pass out courses from such colleges. Further, the argument

clearly overlooks two basic aspects. Firstly, what is primarily

challenged in these writ petitions is the advertisement issued for

inviting applications from the interested candidates to participate in the

selection process (to be held by conducting C.E.T.) for the post of

41 2327.10.doc

Shikshan Sevaks; and not for the post of Special Teachers for Arts and

Drawing Subjects as such. Secondly, the petitioners cannot be heard to

compel the "local authorities" to appoint teachers who qualify only to

be appointed as Special Teachers for Drawing and Arts subjects, as

against the preference to appoint teachers possessing D.Ed. / D.T.Ed.

Qualification, who can teach all subjects, including Drawing and Arts.

23.

We are afraid, it is not open for us in these petitions which

are filed to challenge the appointment process of Shikshan Sevaks in

the schools run by the "local Authorities", to direct the respondents to

fill in the post of Special Teachers for Drawing and Arts subjects, even

though the petitioners may be justified in asserting that there are

vacancies in the posts of Special Teachers in the said schools. The

existence of vacancy in the posts of Special Teachers cannot be the

basis for the petitioners and similarly placed persons to assert that they

have a legal right to be appointed or, for that matter, compelling the

local authorities to appoint them against the posts for which the

impugned advertisement is issued or against the posts of Special

Teachers which has not been advertised. We fail to understand as to

how the petitioners can invoke the principle of legitimate expectation to

42 2327.10.doc

be appointed as teachers in the schools run by the local Authorities,

merely because they have acquired requisite qualification in that behalf.

24. In other words, we cannot but reject the claim of the

petitioners to issue direction against the local Authorities or, for that

matter, the State Government to set apart 10% of the posts from

amongst the advertised posts for appointing candidates possessing

A.T.D. qualification, who can impart lessons in Arts and Drawing

Subjects in primary schools. Indeed, if the local authorities intend to

appoint Special Teachers only for Arts or Drawing Subjects, it will be

open for them to invite applications from candidates possessing A.T.D.

Qualification. We may also observe that the fact that there is 10%

workload of Arts Subject in primary schools does not necessarily mean

that there is any legal obligation on the local Authorities to appoint

candidates possessing qualification of A.T.D. Since no statutory

provision or any Government decision having backing of law has been

brought to our notice, which obliges the local authorities to appoint

minimum quota of candidates with A.T.D. qualification as Special

Teachers for Drawing and Arts Subjects taught in the primary schools

run by them, there is nothing wrong if the local Authorities decide to

appoint candidates with D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. qualification, who, by their

43 2327.10.doc

nature of qualification, are otherwise entitled and duly qualified to

teach even Arts and Drawing Subjects to the students of primary

school. No legal provision has been brought to our notice as to why the

candidates having D.Ed. Qualification would not be competent to do so

in the primary schools run by the local authorities. Indeed, it is

possible to suggest that the scheme provided in the Rules of 1981,

which governs private schools, the same analogy can be applied to the

schools run by the local Authorities. That could be possible if these

petitioners were able to point out any legal provision applicable to the

schools run by the local Authorities, which makes it obligatory for the

local Authorities to appoint only candidates with A.T.D. qualification

as Special Teachers for Drawing and Arts Subjects. On this finding, it

may not be possible for us to countenance the relief claimed by these

petitioners that they be permitted to participate in the selection process

commenced pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 10th

February, 2010, nor it is possible for us to accede to their request of

issuing any direction to the local authorities or the State Government to

set apart some vacancies for candidates possessing A.T.D.

Qualification or, for that matter, to direct the authorities to fill in some

of the posts or any additional post for Special Teachers for Arts and

Drawing Subjects in the primary schools run by the local authorities.

44 2327.10.doc

25. Indeed, if the local Authorities intend to set apart or fill up

future vacancies / posts of Special Teachers from amongst the

candidates possessing A.T.D. qualification only, they are free to do so,

subject, however, to adhering to the extant Regulations and norms

prescribing minimum qualification for such appointment. Suffice it to

observe that neither the impugned advertisement nor the Government

Resolution dated 16th December, 2009 can be found fault with. As of

now, the policy is that the appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevaks

in primary schools should be from amongst the candidates possessing

qualification of S.S.C. / H.S.C. / 12th standard and having passed D.Ed.

or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government. That policy

matter cannot be interfered with lightly. As observed earlier, the

candidates with D.Ed. qualification can teach all subjects to the

students of standards 1 to 4, including Arts and Drawing Subjects,

unlike the candidates with A.T.D. qualification, who can teach only

Drawing and Arts Subjects. In other words, the workload of Arts

Subject is shared by the candidates possessing D.Ed. qualification.

There is nothing in law, brought to our notice, which would prevent

the teachers with D.Ed. qualification to teach Drawing Subject to

45 2327.10.doc

students of primary classes. In absence thereof, no fault can be found

either with the Government Resolution dated 16th December, 2009 or

the impugned advertisement dated 10th February, 2010. As a matter of

fact, the competence of candidates possessing D.Ed. / D.T.Ed.

qualification to teach Arts and Drawing Subjects to primary school

students up to 4th Standard is to be judged on the basis of their syllabus

prescribed for the D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. courses. The State Authorities have

examined the matter on that basis, and taken conscious decision to fill

in the vacancies notified in the impugned advertisement by candidates

possessing D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. qualification. Taking any view of the

matter, the plea of discrimination of candidates with A.T.D.

qualification is untenable.

26. We may now turn to the decisions of this Court, on which,

reliance is placed by the petitioners. We have already dealt with the

decision in the case of Ankush Pandurang Ambore (supra). We may

now turn to the decision in the case of Ramesh Ware (supra). That

was a case where the petitioner had passed H.S.C., as also A.T.D., and

was qualified to be appointed as Arts Teacher. The limited point in

issue answered in that case is: Whether the petitioner could be treated

as Trained Teacher by virtue of the said qualification? In that case, the

46 2327.10.doc

petitioner was appointed in a "private, recognised and aided school".

The Court, naturally, relying on the provisions of the Act of 1977 and

the Rules of 1981, took the view that the petitioner was duly qualified

to fill the post of Arts / Drawing Teacher. That decision will be of no

avail and cannot be the basis to hold that the local authorities are

obliged to appoint candidates with A.T.D. qualification at least to the

extent of the workload of Arts and Drawing Subjects in its school.

27. Reliance is then placed on the decision in the case of

Principal - Our Lady of Salvation High School (supra). Once again,

this was a case in which the respondent therein was appointed as a

Shikshan Sevak by the petitioner's school, which was a private school.

The question was whether the respondent could be treated as an

employee within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act and, if so, the

only remedy available to the respondent was to file appeal under

Section 9 against the order of termination. We fail to understand as to

how this decision will be of any avail to the petitioners before us.

28. Reliance was then placed on the decision in Sanjay

Rakhamaji Jadhav & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in

Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2002 dated 28th September, 2006. This was a

47 2327.10.doc

case where the petitioners were employees of schools run by private

management as Assistant Teachers (Special Teachers). The Court

opined that, in view of their A.T.D. Qualification, they cannot be

treated as untrained teachers. This decision is of no avail for the

reasons already noted earlier.

29. Reliance was also placed on the order dated 4th November,

1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 481 of 1994. Even this order is of no

avail to the petitioners, as it merely recommends to the State of

Maharashtra to consider the possibility of evolving some arrangement

to utilise the services of teachers like Craft or Drawing Teachers or any

other kind of technical teachers by taking their services on hourly basis

or by some other arrangement, so that the students may be benefited

and the teachers, who are unemployed, may also be benefited.

30. Reverting to the revised Shikshan Sevak Scheme of 2003,

the same provides for the educational qualification to be appointed as

Shikshan Sevaks. The requirement is that the candidate must possess

48 2327.10.doc

S.S.C. or H.S.C. or D.Ed. or Government-recognised teaching degree

in force. As stated earlier, no fault can be found with the Government

policy providing for such qualification for the post of Shikshan Sevaks.

Merely because there is sufficient workload of Arts and Drawing

Subjects, by itself, cannot be the basis to preclude the local authorities

to avail of the services of candidates possessing D.Ed. / D.T.Ed., who

are also competent to teach Arts and Drawing Subjects along with

other subjects in 1st to 4th standards, i.e., primary schools run by the

local authorities.

31. For all the above reasons, we find no merit in these

petitions. The same are dismissed with no order as to costs.

     R.Y. GANOO, J.                                A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.