Bombay High Court
Ganeshsing S/O Ramsing Lohade And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 16 October, 2015
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp2440.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2440/2014, with 2444/2014 with
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.147/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.237/2014
with
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.166/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2958/2014
and
C.A.O. NO.356/2015 IN M.C.A.ST.NO.3596/2015 IN W.P.NO.2443/2014.
ig ---
(1) WRIT PETITION No. 2440/2014.
Ku. Smita d/o Manohar Ramteke,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of at P.O. Lagum,
Tq. Mulchera, District Gadchiroli. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Tribal Development Department,
through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, near RTO
Giripeth, Nagpur.
3. The Commissioner, Tribal
Development Department,
Nashik. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. M.N. Hiwase, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
------------------------------------
with
(2) WRIT PETITION No. 2444/2014.
1. Ganeshsing s/o Ramsing Lohade,
Aged about 38 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
District Gondia.
2. Manoj s/o Kisan Neware,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
District Gondia.
3. Rakesh s/o Pandhari Pradhanaged,
Aged about 33 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
District Gondia.
4. Jagdish s/o Damodhar Padole,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
District Gondia.
5. Omprakash s/o Tarachand Kewat,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
District Gondia.
6. Mukund s/o Milkiram Dhobneuke
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, r/o Amgaon, Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
3
7. Asaram s/o Chindhuji Tumsare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
8. Malvanti w/o Padambharti Goswami
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
9. Surajlal s/o Devchand Madavi
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,ig
Distt. Gondia
10. Pyarilal s/o Hanslal Baviskar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
11. Bhupesh s/o Vitthal Tangse
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
12. Chandrakant s/o Vijay Shiwarkar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
13. Nileshwar s/o Ganpat Meshram
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
14. Mohanlal s/o Atmaram Padole
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
4
15. Shalini w/o Uttamrao Masane
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
16. Renuka w/o Shankar Ukey
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
17. Kavita w/o Ramchand Meshram
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,ig
Distt. Gondia
18. Gunvanta s/o Joshiram Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
19. Manorama w/o Dasaram Kirsan
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
20. Ajay s/o Savant Yadav
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
21. Nirwanta Pramod Kumde
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
22. Bhagrata Bhartlal Barve
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Amgaon,
Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
5
23. Subhash s/o Maroti Mankar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Arjunimorgaon
Distt. Gondia
24. Umesh s/o Namdeo Thakare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Arjunimorgaon,
Distt. Gondia
25. Nipan s/o Jayaram Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Arjunimorgaon,
Distt. Gondia
26. Sahadeo s/o Gopichand Bagderia
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Arjunimorgaon,
Distt. Gondia
27. Pawan s/o Prabhakar Kohal
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Arjunimorgaon,
Distt. Gondia
28. Naresh s/o Daulat Waware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Arjunimorgaon,
Distt. Gondia
29. Santosh s/o Ramchand Sahare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
30. Narendra s/o Durgaprasad Surajjoshi
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
6
31. Satish s/o Arunkumar Kottewar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
32. Ujjwala w/o Dhanurdhar Kohle
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
33. Manoj s/o Mahadeo Chachere
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
34. Bhivram s/o Daulat Bhoyar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
35. Kusum w/o Ramdas Bhoyar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
36. Madhuri w/o Anandrao Gajbe
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
37. Kalpna w/o Baliram Rahut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
38. Hemlata w/o Diwakar Rahut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
7
39. Kunda w/o Vyankatrao Warkhade
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
40. Indumati w/o Baliram Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
41. Sangita Joshiram Bhurkude
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
42. Kuwarlal s/o Fanduji Khandwaye
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
43. Chaitram s/o Jiwan Koylare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
44. Waman s/o Abhiman Ghartkar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
45. Rajendra s/o Dadu Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
46. Omjay s/o Lakhu Kawre
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
8
47. Rita Feken Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia
48. Mahesh s/o Suraj Kaware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
49. Sudhir s/o Nagorao Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
50. Rajkumar s/o Shriram Chaudhary
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
51. Kalpana w/o Shankar Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
52. Yashawant s/o Viththal Barde
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
53. Shobha Ramchandra Kolhare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
54. Fulketan s/o Gajanan Kove
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
9
55. Kavita Budharam Wadhai
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
56. Lata Vishwas Khekare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
57. Vandana Dhaniram Sahare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
58. Varsha Rupchand Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
59. Vilas s/o Gangaram Kokode
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
60. Yogita Baburao Marskolhe
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Sadakarjuni,
Distt. Gondia
61. Waishali Moreshwar Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
62. Sunil s/o Bhuraji Sonwane
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
63. Bhumeshwari w/o Pannalal Shendre
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
10
64. Basanti w/o Madanlal Sonwane
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
65. Sandeep s/o Dulichand Pihare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
66. Madhuri Radheshyam Karsayal
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
67. Sangeeta Chhannilal Gajbe
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
68. Suresh s/o Somaji Shahare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
69. Pravin s/o Madhukar Rathod
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
70. Ganesh s/o Kumod Chavhan
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
71. Jaiwanta s/o Ram Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
72. Manoj s/o Madansingh Jatpele
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
73. Gajendra s/o Hulhasgiri Goswami
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
11
74. Harshkumar s/o Dharamendrasing Pawar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
75. Vilas s/o Pandhari Dhakate
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
76. Govinda s/o Akhadu Katewar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
77. Pradip s/o Narayan Jadhao
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
78. Tejasingh s/o Bhagatsingh Nagbhire
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
79. Pankaj s/o Arun Yadav
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
80. Vandana Bharatlal Chamlate
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
81. Nirmala w/o Bhaulal Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
82. Pramod s/o Murlidhar Madavi
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
83. Lalita w/o Harichand Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
12
84. Afroz s/o Rahimuddin Khan
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
85. Bharti w/o Chunnilal Dudhbarve
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
86. Nalini w/o Ghanshayam Karsayal
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. and Distt. Gondia
87. Sanjay s/o Sevakarm Kohale
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
88. Rajkumar s/o Ramchand Kosme
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
89. Ravindra s/o Jagdish Bhonde
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
90. Tekchand s/o Fandu Chaudhari
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tiroraq, and Distt. Gondia
91. Duryodhan s/o Sukhdas Sendre
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
92. Shakaram s/o Baxi Ukey
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
93. Arun s/o Lakshman Barve
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
13
94. Rakesh s/o Subhash Shahare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Tirora, Distt. Gondia
95. Tekchand s/o Shivlal Gawadkar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
96. Kishor s/o Premlal Kathewar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
97. Rajesh s/o Motiram Bhoyer
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
98. Santoshkumar s/o Bhaiyalal Kaware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
99. Tejsingh s/o Ankush Alot
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
100. Arti w/o Bhawaniprasad Yadav
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
101. Dilip s/o Sukhdeorao Hote
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
102. Shankar s/o Dewaji Lataye
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
103. Rundan s/o Mohansingh Rathod
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
14
104. Arvindkumar s/o Tejalal Soyam
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
105. Lalita w/o Gayniram Meshram
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
106. Rameshkumar s/o Sakharam Nandane
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
107. Dilip s/o Kisanaji Kuratkar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
108. Yogesh s/o Ankush Luche
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
109. Mukesh s/o Shriram Thatkar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
110. Madhuri w/o Ramchandra Lohare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
111. Veena w/o Rajaram Salame
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
112. Sangita w/o Karu Sidame
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
113. Purushottam s/o Tulshiram Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
15
114. Geeta w/o Ramlal Chaudhari
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
115. Dilip s/o Dayalal Uikey
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
116. Prakash s/o Sukhram Nareti
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
117. Subhash s/o Ramdas Nareti
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
118. Rameshbapu s/o Cheptu Kolhare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
119. Nandeshwar s/o Kanhaiya Netam
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
120. Santosh s/o Murari Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
121. Gariba Bislal Sahala
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
122. Nandkishor s/o Damaji Shahare
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
123. Rajkumar s/o Bhaiyalal Tekam
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
16
124. Sujit s/o Subhash Chavhan
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
125. Warshao Kusan Ahir
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
126. Tulsidas s/o Parasram Khaul
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
127. Ishavari Khumansingh Parihar
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
128. Vishalkumar s/o Shamlal Yadao
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Salekasa, Distt. Gondia
129. Rajkumar s/o Jiwansingh Chandel
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
130. Vijaysingh s/o Ramlalsingh Suryawanshi
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
131. Sushma w/o Shamlal Yadao
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
132. Veena Brijlal Kusaram
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. & Distt. Gondia
133. Pratima Ramchandra Sindram
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
17
134. Lata Nilkanthrao Uikey
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
135. Lahu s/o Gangaram Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
136. Ahilyabai w/o Hagruji Naik
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt. Gondia
137. Avinash s/o Markand Neware
Aged about 35 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Tq. Deori, Distt.Gondia ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development and Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School and Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
3. The Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Gondia, Tq. And District
Gondia.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Tq. and Distt. Gondia. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
18
-----------------------------------
Mrs. R.R. Tiwari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
------------------------------------
with
(3) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.147/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.237/2014.
1.Maroti s/o Vishwanath Mundkar,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Marpalli, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
2.Hanmant s/o Nagorao Patil,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Macchigatta, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Lagam, District Gadchiroli.
3.Asaram s/o Bhagwanrao Tonde,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Marpalli, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
4.Suresh s/o Sheshrao Gandhe,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Dhannur, Post Paudampalli, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
5.Ku. Sita d/o Tukaram Rathod,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Kottagudum, Post Deolmari, Panchayat
Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
19
6.Manohar s/o Govind Kadte,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Marpalli, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
7.Bharat Sambhaji Shrirame,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Nagulwahi, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
8.Zitru s/o Sampat Khate,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Lagamchek, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
9.Ambadas s/o Rama Chavan,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Madweli, Post Mannerajaram, Panchayat
Samiti, Bhamragad, District Gadchiroli.
10.Gajanan Marotrao Miratkar,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Nagulwahi, Post Lagam, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
11.Punnyawan Maroti Kumare,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Mallera, Post Koparalli, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
12.Suman s/o Ashok Chavan,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Abanpalli, Post Aheri, Panchayat
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
20
Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
13.Chhaya Namdeorao Ghorude,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Tumargund, Post Damput, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
14.Vidhyadhar Shripati Shrirame,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Baraswada, Post Mullchera, Panchayat
Samiti, Mulchera, District Gadchiroli.
15.Surekha Gulabrao Rathod,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Shivanipath, Post Bori, Panchayat
Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
16.O.B. Bhimanpalliwar,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri,
District Gadchiroli.
17.N.S. Nagbhidkar,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri,
District Gadchiroli.
18.U.G. Shriramwar,
Aged - Major, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri,
District Gadchiroli. ....PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
21
1. Smt. Sampada Mehta,
Aged Major, Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
2. Manik Sakhare,
Aged major, Block Education Officer,
(Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mrs. Neeta Jog, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents.
------------------------------------
with
(4) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.166/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2958/2014.
1.Shri Jaideo Mukhru Kove,
Aged - 32 years, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Mannerajaram, Post Mannerajaram,
Panchayat Samiti, Bhamragad, District Gadchiroli.
2.Shri Vaishnava Lasu Katenge
Aged - 32 years,, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Kukkameta, Post Bhamragad, Panchayat
Samiti, Bhamragad, District Gadchiroli.
3.Shri Shankar Watte Timma,
Aged - 35 years,, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, nargunda, Post Nargunda, Panchayat
Samiti, Nargunda, District Gadchiroli.
4.Ku. Saraswati Kishtayya Arka,
Aged - 29 years,, occ - Primary School
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
22
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
5.shri bhagwan Durga Madavi
Aged - 31 years,, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat
Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
6.Narayan Shamrao Sidam,
Aged - 30 years,, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
7.Sadasingh Dasaram Naruti
Aged - 32 years, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
8.Rajendra Zumbar Dahifale
Aged - 33 years, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
9.Ku. Jyoti Arun Atram
Aged - 29 years,, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
10.Govind Vishwanath Bidgar,
Aged - 31 years, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
11.Mainu Samarth Holi
Aged - 33 years, occ - Primary School
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Panchayat Samiti, Aheri,
District Gadchiroli. ....PETITIONERS.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
23
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sampada Mehta,
Aged Major, Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
2. Manik Sakhare,
Aged major, Block Education Officer,
(Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli.
ig ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mrs. Neeta Jog, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents.
------------------------------------
with
(5) C.A.O. NO.356/2015 IN M.C.A.ST.NO.3596/2015 IN W.P.NO.2443/2014.
1.The Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Tq. District Wardha.
2.the Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Wardha. ....APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
1. Ramkrushna Bhaurao Deogadkar,
Aged - major, occ - service,
r/o. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
2. Shri Kishor Balkrushna Lamkase,
Aged - major, r/o. Hinganghat, District Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
24
3. Shri Suresh s/o Baliram Chouhan,
Aged - major, occ - service,
r/o. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
4. Shri Vinayak Hirasingh Rathod
Aged - major, occ - service,
r/o. Seloo, District Wardha.
5. Ku. Pratidnya d/o Govind Wuikye,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. And District Wardha.
6. Vinod s/o Gurkha Naik,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
7. Ganesh s/o Gopalrao Wadwe
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
8. Ku. Varsha d/o Shriram Solanke,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
9. Manojkumar s/o Vasantrao Sisode
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
10. Jayraj s/o Bhirmao Nathjogi,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
11. Sangramsingh s/o Bhimrao Rathod,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
12. Bhima s/o Husen Atram
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
25
13. Ganesh s/o Vithalrao Sayam,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
14. Vinod s/o Ghanshyam Sidam
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
15. Sandip s/o Bhirmao Yedme,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
16. Manisha d/o Ramkrushna Maraskolhe
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
17. Rambhau s/o Manikrao Mundhe,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
18. Ku. Manisha d/o Motiram Pendam
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Hinganghat, District Wardha.
19. Ku. Vaishali d/o Tukaramji Uike,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
20. Lobhesh s/o Ramdas Kursange
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
21. Praful s/o Atmaram Ugalmugle,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
22. Suryakant s/o Manikrao Dhakne
Aged about - major, occ - service,
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
26
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
23. Santosh s/o Ramdas Kodape,
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
24. Nitin s/o Madhaorao Naitam
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
25. Sandeep s/o Dinkarrao Ghuge
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
26. Ku. Hemlata d/o Dayaram Karuati
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
27. Ku.Sangita d/o Ajabrao Khudsange
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
28. Ku. Malti d/o Laxmanrao Meshram
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Seloo, District Wardha.
29. Vaishwanath s/o Namdeorao Kale
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
30. Ramesh s/o Wasudeo Parchake
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
31. Ku. Suvarna d/o Narayan Kumare
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
32. Ku. Sunita d/o Baliram Tumdam
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
27
33. Ku. Mangala d/o kalidas Karad
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
34. Sandeep s/o Ganeshrao Sadmake
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
35. Sunil s/o Bahurao Deogadkar
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
36. Prakash s/o Bahurao Deogadkar
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Hinganghat, District Wardha.
37. Dnyaneshwar B. Bhoyar
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Karanja, District Wardha.
38. Radhesham s/o Kisan Rathod
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
39. Umesh s/o Wamanrao Dhurve
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
40. Avinash s/o Shankarrao Kendre
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Samudrapur, District Wardha.
41. Santosh s/o Nanaji Pendor
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Hinganghat, District Wardha.
42. Rupsingh s/o Dashrath Rathod
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. And District Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2015 00:01:30 :::
Judgment wp2440.14
28
43. Ku. Asha d/o Bhauraoji Karnake
Aged about - major, occ - service,
r/o. Tq. Asti, District Wardha.
44. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Water
Conservation, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Applicants.
Mrs. Richa P. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 43.
Mr. N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.44.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 03.09.2015.
Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2015.
JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
In all these matters, the Assistant Teachers who joined the
employment between the years 2004-2007, as Untrained candidates on the post
Judgment wp2440.14
of Shikshan Sevak, claim the pay-scale prescribed for an Untrained teacher,
after they completed initial period of three years as Untrained candidates i.e. as
Untrained Shikshan Sevaks. In Contempt Petitions, prayer is to direct the
respective employer to abide by the judgments/directions issued by this Court in
favour of the petitioner employees (Assistant Teachers) and punish their
employers for not obeying the same.
2.
In matters decided by this Court earlier, or even in matters presently
under consideration, the respective learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners rely upon the judgment dated 24.04.2012 in Writ Petition
No.7116/2011 delivered by the Aurangabad Bench. That judgment has been
followed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 629/2013 decided on 27.06.2013; in
Writ Petition No. 2077/2013 decided on 03.07.2013 and in bunch of Writ
Petitions having Writ Petition No. 427/2013 and others, at Bombay decided on
03.10.2013. This Court has while deciding Writ Petition Nos. 237/2014,
4767/2013 and other connected matters on 18.06.2014, has again followed
that judgment. It is also followed on 13.02.2015 while deciding Writ Petition
No. 6569/2015, on 30.01.2015 while deciding Writ Petition No. 341/2015.
Writ Petition No. 2443/2014 has been allowed on 31.10.2014 following the very
same judgment delivered at Aurangabad on 31.10.2014. One of us (B.P.
Dharmadhikari, J) is party to that order. Needless to reiterate that all these later
Judgment wp2440.14
orders or judgments follow the above mentioned judgment dated 24.04.2012 in
Writ Petition No. 7116/2011 delivered at Aurangabad Bench.
3. Petitioners rely upon the terms and conditions of the appointment to
urge that after untrained candidates join as Shikshan Sevaks and complete
probation period of three years satisfactorily, the pay-scale prescribed for an
untrained teacher ought to have been extended to them. Submission is, grant of
pay-scale to them only after they procure regular training qualification is
contrary to law. Prayer therefore is, to release them the said pay-scale after they
satisfactorily complete their probation and then to fix them accordingly in
corresponding pay-scale prescribed for trained teacher, after they acquired
training qualification. Various judgments mentioned supra have been pressed
into service. Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.09.2015
dismissing Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated
18.06.2014 in Writ Petition No. 237/2014 at Nagpur, is also relied upon by
them. The judgment reported at (2013) 14 SCC 562 (State of Rajasthan and
another .vrs. Milap Chand Jain and another) is relied upon to point out that
earlier adjudication by this Court has to operate as res-judicata. Opposing the
M.C.A. review petition filed by the employer Zilla Parishad, Wardha (2013) 8
SCC 320 (Kamlesh Verma .vrs. Mayawati and others.) is also relied upon to
urge that the fetters placed on powers of this Court to review its earlier
Judgment wp2440.14
order/judgments.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad, while
opposing the contempt petitions and writ petitions state that when Writ Petition
No.7116/2011 was decided at Aurangabad on 24.04.2012, the complete policy
and entire material was not available and could not be pressed into service
before that Bench. The law laid down in that judgment, therefore, cannot be
said to be correct and a binding precedent. Later orders or judgments of this
Court apply very same law, and as the correct position has not been pressed into
service even before later Benches, the question of res-judicata does not arise at
all. They submit that the appointment of an untrained candidate was allowed
only by way of an exception and that too in limited cases. The untrained
candidates so recruited therefore, did not occupy the post of shikshan sevak and
period of their probation never commenced. They occupy post of shikshan
sevaks only after obtaining training qualification and from that date only, their
respective period of probation needed to be calculated. After completion of
probation period of three years as trained shikshan sevak, the incumbents have
been designated as assistant teachers. Hence, their service as untrained
candidate is not relevant and there is no question of granting any pay-scale even
of an untrained teacher to the incumbents working as untrained shikshan
sevaks. It is pointed out that because of orders passed by this Court in various
Judgment wp2440.14
matters, an unforeseen burden running into few hundred crores of rupees has
been cast upon the employer Zilla Parishad.
5. In the alternative and without prejudice, it is submitted that a person
recruited as trained shikshan sevak receives honorarium which is less then
wages of an untrained teacher in pay scale as sought. Thus, an untrained
incumbent who puts in three years service has been allowed to draw wages in
pay-scale prescribed for untrained teacher which are much better than
honorarium paid to trained shikshan sevaks. If such untrained incumbent does
not procure necessary training qualification within a stipulated period, he can be
terminated and in that situation, the injustice which is caused to trained
shikshan sevak becomes apparent. Respective counsel appearing for Zilla
Parishads, as also learned A.G.P. submit that pay scale for untrained teachers
were prescribed only when training qualification was introduced as essential for
teachers for the first time. Any incumbent who is recruited as untrained
shikshan sevak cannot claim that salary, as he cannot be equated with an
untrained teacher. All of them therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
They also submits that in this situation, the prayer for Review deserves to be
granted and the contempt petitions need to be disposed of as the judgments or
directions therein have been issued without looking into all relevant factors.
Judgment wp2440.14
6. In brief reply arguments, respective counsel for the petitioners state
that some Zilla Parishads have already obeyed the directions and payments have
been made to the Assistant Teachers accordingly, hence, the petitioners cannot
be subjected to hostile discrimination by denying to them the similar benefit.
7. We find it appropriate to consider the terms and conditions prescribed
for an incumbent in the scheme formulated to govern the Shikshan sewaks. The
policy decision of the State Government to implement modified scheme for
providing employment as primary shikshan sevaks is dated 27.02.2003. It
makes reference to earlier government decision and then to various High Courts
orders on it. An adjudication by Aurangabad Bench dated 04.07.2001 in Writ
Petition Nos. 817/2001 and 949/2001 has been mentioned. Reference to fact of
filing of Special Leave Petition No.19081/2001 and orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, setting aside the High Court judgment is also seen. The Hon'ble
Apex Court directed High Court to rehear the matte. It appears that in the
meanwhile at Principal Seat at Bombay, while deciding Writ Petition
No.2940/2000, certain amendments to original shikshan sevak scheme were felt
necessary. Lastly it is stated that Writ Petition No. 817/2001 came to be
decided by the Aurangabad Bench on 11.10.2002 and after considering all these
factors, State Government formulated a modified scheme to be implemented
from the academic year 2003-04, and that modified scheme is at Annexure-A
Judgment wp2440.14
with this policy decision/government decision.
8. Clause [2] of said Schedule-A stipulates SSC/HSC, D.Ed. or other
equivalent qualification as necessary qualification for appointment as shikshan
sevak. Such shikshan sevak is to be paid Rs.3000/- per month as honorarium.
Shikshan Sevaks appointed in terms of clause [7] is to be paid honorarium of
Rs.1500/. Its' clause [4] which deals with honorarium mentions that this
honorarium is payable to backward class candidates who are untrained and have
passed 12th standard examination. As per clause [5], such an appointment on a
clear and vacant post is to be for a period of three years. Clause [7] speaks of
exemption from educational qualification.
9. As per clause [7], candidates holding qualification prescribed under
clause [2] are only to be appointed as Shikshan Sevaks. These words 'holding
qualification' and 'only to be appointed' are highlighted in clause [7] itself by the
State. But, then it is further mentioned that if for making appointments on the
reserved posts i.e. on posts reserved for backward classes, if candidates
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Tribe, Other Backward Classes, Nomadic Tribes
or Special Backward Class candidates with training qualification are not
available. H.S.C. pass candidates from such backward categories can be
appointed subject to certain terms and conditions. These conditions require
Judgment wp2440.14
such an untrained candidate to procure training qualification at his own cost
within three years. The fees or charges for such training prescribed by the State
Government from time to time are to be paid by such untrained candidates. If
such shikshan sevak fails to obtain training qualification through
correspondence within prescribed time limit, such an untrained shikshan sevak
can be given further extension of one year and thereafter his services are liable
to be terminated. It is also mentioned that those shikshan sevaks who could not,
on account of unavoidable reasons, take advantage of first opportunity and
could not appear for training through correspondence, one extension of one
year can be given to them.
10. Clause 10 of this Scheme is on the subject of absorption of the
shikshan sevaks. If a shikshan sevak satisfactorily works for three years on the
post as shikshan sevak, he is to be appointed on a regular post of a primary
teacher on the regular pay scale. It's sub-clause [2] lays down that services
rendered by him as such Shikshan Sevak are to be computed for calculating his
pension and other retiremental benefits. Schedule-B appended with this
resolution or scheme is the proforma of appointment order. Clause [d] in this
from is in consonance with clause 10 mentioned supra. Clause [f] states that all
Shikshan Sevaks appointed will be paid an honorarium of Rs. 1500/- or Rs.
3000/-. Thus, an incumbent occupying the post of Shikshan Sevak, after he
Judgment wp2440.14
satisfactorily completes the probation period of three years, can be appointed on
a regular post of primary teacher. Clause 10 of the model appointment order or
then proforma appointment order, does not show that an untrained Shikshan
Sevak can be appointed on a post of an untrained primary teachers after he
satisfactorily completes probation period of three years. On the contrary, it is
apparent from the scheme reproduced above, that there is no post of an
untrained primary teachers on the establishment of any school. As such, there is
no question of an untrained incumbent working against a vacancy of the post of
Shikshan Sevak to contend that if he puts in service of thee years as an
untrained Shikshan Sevak, he should be given pay scale of an untrained
primary teacher. In view of the shikshan Sevak scheme, the regular vacancy
which otherwise would have been of the or in the cadre of an assistant teacher is
transformed into a post of a shikshan Sevak for three years. An eligible
incumbent duly selected as a shikshan Sevak, earns a fixed honorarium for three
years and after completion of three years of satisfactory service, becomes an
assistant teacher and is borne on regular cadre. Thus, the post of shikshan
Sevak occupied by him itself gets converted into post of assistant teacher. There
is no creation of a new or another post of assistant teacher for his absorption
thereby resulting in a vacancy in the cadre of shikshan sevak. No law creates a
post of an untrained teacher in a primary or secondary school, and a post
occupied by an untrained candidate as shikshan Sevak can not get converted
Judgment wp2440.14
into the post of a trained teacher after three years. As such, the contention that
post of an untrained teacher is created or then an untrained incumbent becomes
entitled to salary as an untrained teacher is not supported by this scheme.
11. On 11.03.2005, the Tribal Development Department of State
Government has issued a government resolution on the subject of appointing
untrained backward class candidates. It follows and extends the above
mentioned resolution dated 27.02.2003, issued by the State Government
(School Education Department) even to Ashram Schools. It mentions that while
appointing such untrained candidates, on second or then subsequent occasion as
a shikshan Sevak, the appointing authority has to again ascertain that trained
candidates are not available. If trained candidates are available, those
candidates are to be appointed first and if any posts are left vacant thereafter,
then only such untrained candidates can be reappointed against said vacancy.
12. On 29.01.2008, the Education and Sports Department of State of
Maharashtra has issued a Government Resolution which is on the subject of
extending time limit for acquiring B. Ed. Qualification for assistant teacher
working on the post to be filled in by a graduate trained teacher. It is also on
the subject of protecting employment of untrained primary Shikshan Sevaks. It
mentions that, if services of such untrained primary teachers are terminated for
Judgment wp2440.14
their failure to acquire D.Ed. qualification within the stipulated period, they
should be taken back in the employment as a special case. Their employment
has been protected till they are selected and nominated for training under postal
D.Ed. scheme. On 17.09.2011 the State Government through its School
Education and Sports Department issued a Government Resolution on the
subject of hike in honorarium payable to Shikshan Sevaks. As per this
government resolution, while prescribing hike for trained primary Shikshan
Sevaks, the honorarium has been enhanced to Rs. 6000/- per month; for
untrained Shikshan Sevaks, it is increased to Rs.3000/- per month. Clause [2]
thereof stipulates that untrained Shikshan Sevaks working as on that date i.e.
on 17.09.2011, will not get the pay scale of untrained primary teacher, they will
earn honorarium at half the rate of the honorarium payable to trained Shikshan
Sevaks. Clause [6] further stipulates that as trained D.Ed. Shikshan Sevaks are
available in sufficient number in backward class category, the enabling
provisions allowing appointment of an untrained incumbent on the post of
Shikshan Sevak i.e. concession made in government resolution dated
27.02.2003 has been cancelled.
13. Before 17.9.2011, the School Education and Sports Department of
State Government has issued government resolution on 16.12.2009, and as per
that government resolution, the recruitment to the post of Shikshan Sevaks has
Judgment wp2440.14
been prescribed through a competitive examination through centralized process.
Clause 3 thereof mentions that the period of appointment shall be of three years
as stipulated in government resolution dated 27.02.2003. The duration of
appointment for untrained Shikshan Sevaks has been stated to be till they
acquire training qualification in consonance with the above government
resolution dated 29.01.2008. It is to be noted that this decision is prior to above
government resolution dated 17.09.2011.
14. Our attention has also been drawn to a communication dated
24.04.2007, sent by the State Government to the Chief Executive Officers of all
the Zilla Parishads. It is on the subject of pay scale of untrained teachers or
deemed trained teachers. Vide entry 2, it mentions category of untrained and
SSC pass and all other teachers to whom pay scale of Rs. 260-495 was
admissible prior to 01.01.1986. The corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 975-
1600 is shown from 01.01.1986, and thereafter pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 has
been mentioned as payable from 01.01.1996. It is therefore, obvious that it
mentions incumbents working as untrained teachers and not as Shikshan
Sevaks. The scheme of Shikshan Sevak has been brought into play definitely
from 27.02.2003, and this communication does not refer to the post of
Shikshan Sevaks at all.
Judgment wp2440.14
15. This Court had no occasion and the first judgment delivered at
Aurangabad on 24.04.2012 does not find consideration at length in any of the
later judgments or orders of this Court. In said judgment dated 24.04.2012
delivered by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, petitioner Selma Take was
appointed as Shikshan Sevak by Zilla Parishad Beed on 04.11.2004. Her
appointment order contained the above mentioned condition regarding
satisfactory completion of services of three years as Shikshan Sevak and then
appointment as a primary teacher in regular pay scale. The petitioner then
made a representation and sought pay scale admissible to untrained teachers as
per 5th and 6th Pay Commission wage revisions. Her first representation was
dated 16.08.2011 where she mentioned that as postal D.Ed. course was
discontinued, she had been enrolled for B.Ed. Course. It was also pointed out
that Zilla Parishad, Beed had given similar benefit to other similarly placed
persons. The communication dated 24.04.2007 mentioned supra, was pressed
into service to point out the extension of pay scale to untrained teachers. Zilla
Parishad in reply pointed out that letters of government dated 24.04.2007 and
09.09.1999 were about untrained teachers appointed as such prior to
implementation of the Shikshan Sevak scheme, that the petitioner Seema was
appointed on 04.11.2004 and the government resolution dated 17.09.2011
clearly stipulated that the pay scales were not applicable to untrained teachers.
In judgment paragraph no.8, the Division Bench of this Court has looked into
Judgment wp2440.14
the communication dated 24.04.2007, noted its contents and found that
separate pay scales were prescribed for teachers having training qualification
and for untrained teachers. It is further found that petitioner completed three
years of service as Shikshan Sevak in 2007, and therefore, in terms of clause [e]
of the appointment order, she became entitled to be considered for appointment
as a primary teacher in regular pay scale, provided her performance was
satisfactory. As she completed that period in 2007, and reply did not point any
unsatisfactory performance, the Division Bench found that she became entitled
to pay scale of untrained primary teacher. It also held that her this right could
not have been defeated by the subsequent Government resolution dated
17.09.2011.
16. Thus, because of stipulation in clause [e] of the appointment order of
petitioner Seema, a particular view has been reached. All other government
resolutions having bearing on the subject were then not pressed into service and
have not been looked into by the said Bench. Beed Zilla Parishad did not point
out all relevant developments. Similarly, the respondent no.1 State Government
in Writ Petition No.7116/2011 also did not press the same. Clause [e] of the
appointment order issued to petitioner Seema in that writ petition is not
produced before us by the parties. It also appears that Beed Zilla Parishad had in
past extended similar benefit to untrained shikshan sewaks who had
Judgment wp2440.14
satisfactorily completed three years.
17. Terms and conditions stipulated in the model appointment order are
already mentioned by us supra. The proforma appointment order is Annexure-B
with the government resolution dated 27.02.2003. Clause 10 of the
appointment order envisages consideration for regularization on a regular post
of primary teacher after satisfactory completion of three years as a Shikshan
Sevak. Such Shikshan Sevak after 3 years is to be given pay scale of a primary
teacher. Thus, he starts at the initial stage of pay scale of a primary teacher
after he has put in three years of satisfactory services as Shikshan Sevak. The
model appointment order vide clause [d] is on same lines. This clause [d] does
not mention that the incumbent will be given appointment on a post of a
untrained primary teacher, if he completes satisfactorily three years services as
an untrained Shikshan Sevak.
18. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2440/2014 before this Court assails the
order of recovery of amount paid to her in excess for period from 01.07.2007 to
29.06.2011. The appointment order issued to her show that she was selected
for postal D.Ed. course in 2007-08 as per communication dated 28.04.2009. As
per order dated 17.04.2008, her employer (a private education society),
extended her pay scale available to untrained primary teacher. Fault has been
Judgment wp2440.14
found because of government resolution dated 17.09.2011. She has completed
D.Ed. on 30.06.2011 i.e. before 17.09.2011.
19. Writ Petition No. 2444/2014 is filed by 137 teachers. All of them have
joined in January, 2004 and completed three years on different dates in
January, 2007 as untrained Shikshan Sevaks. They have acquired training
qualification i.e. D.Ed. on various dates as given in Annexure-A with that writ
petition. Most of them have acquired that qualification before 17.09.2011.
While 4 of them have acquired that qualification on 03.01.2012, and one has
acquired it on 28.06.2012. None of them have been fixed in any pay scale as
untrained primary teachers. Their employer - respondent no.3 Zilla Parishad,
Gondia has not extended said benefits to any untrained person working as
Shikshan Sevaks. Facts in other petitions are on same lines. It is not the case of
any of the petitioners that their employer has fixed any of untrained incumbent
working as Shikshan Sevak in the pay scale of a untrained primary teachers
after three years. By placing reliance upon the above mentioned judgment of
Aurangabad Bench, they are trying to point out parity.
20. We have found that in judgment delivered by the Aurangabad Bench
in Writ Petition No.7116/2011, the employer Zilla Parishad, Beed had released
that benefit (rightly or wrongly), to certain other untrained Shikshan Sevaks,
Judgment wp2440.14
and it was denied to petitioner Seema therein. Clause [e] in her appointment
order perhaps entitled her to pay scale of a untrained primary teacher also.
Here both these facts are lacking. Petitioners are not in a position to claim
parity, qua, any other employees in employment with their respective employer
or then a right flowing from a stipulation in their appointment order.
21. Perusal of Clause 7 of 2003 scheme which contemplates relaxation or
exemption from educational qualification, prescribed in its clause [2] for
appointment as Shikshan Sevaks, shown that it is restricted only to backward
class candidates who needed to be recruited to achieve the requisite percentage
of reservation. Thus, a backward class candidate to be recruited against an open
roaster point was not made eligible for such relaxation or exemption. This
concession was therefore, only to give adequate representation to backward
classes while making recruitment to the post of Shikshan Sevaks against
reserved roaster points. The recruiting agency was obliged to verify whether the
trained persons i.e. those who satisfy the educational qualifications prescribed
vide clause [2], were available or not. Only after reaching the satisfaction that
such trained qualified persons were not available for recruitment against
reserved roaster point, untrained backward persons were allowed to be
recruited. Petitioners before this Court have obtained D.Ed. qualification later
on and have also been given approval. It therefore, appears that their entry into
Judgment wp2440.14
employment is in consonance with clause 7 mentioned supra.
22. But, then as it is apparent from clause 7 itself, it is a concession made
available in favour of backward class candidates to protect and maintain
constitutional reservation. This concession does not enable the incumbent to
claim right to pay scale as untrained primary teacher after three years on
completion of service. Clause 10 of the government resolution is very clear, and
as per that clause, if a Shikshan Sevak puts in three years of satisfactory service
on the post of Shikshan Sevak, he is to be appointed on a regular post of
primary teacher. There is no post with any Zilla Parishad or employer which
can be stated to be a post of an untrained primary teacher. Hence, when clauses
2, 7 and 10 are read together, it is clear that the government resolution dated
27.02.2003 does not enable the petitioners to claim pay scale of untrained
primary teacher, merely because they have put in three years of service as
untrained Shikshan Sevaks. They must be regularized/absorbed on the post of
a regular primary teacher only. When the scheme of Shikshan Sevaks
formulated on 27.02.2003 is looked into in its entirety, it is apparent that the
period of probation itself may not began to run till a person fully qualified to
hold the post is appointed on it. Performance of an untrained incumbent,
therefore, may not be relevant and decisive to find out whether he has
satisfactorily completed period of probation. However, in the light of the
Judgment wp2440.14
findings reached above, and as this issue has not been urged before us, we do
not record any conclusive finding on it. We also do not find it necessary to
evaluate the contention that in no case an untrained incumbent completing
three years as a shikshan sevak, can draw wages more that the honorarium
payable to a trained Shikshan Sevak We prefer to leave these issues open for its
due evaluation in more appropriate facts and circumstances. We also find that
the present petitioners have woken up only after orders of Court at Aurangabad
and were not vigilant enough to exercise the alleged right within period of
limitation or in reasonable time.
23. In this situation, as we find that the judgment of Aurangabad Bench
mentioned supra dated 24.04.2012 does not lay down any law of universal
application, present petitions filed simply placing reliance upon it are
misconceived and are liable to be dismissed. Petitioners have failed to
demonstrate any right in them to enable them to claim pay scale of an untrained
primary teacher after putting in three years of service as untrained Shikshan
Sevak. Dismissal of a SLP by the Hon. Apex Court against one order or judgment
of this Court does not and can not improve the situation for the petitioners. Writ
Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
Judgment wp2440.14
24. As far as contempt petitions are concerned, the orders or judgments of
this Court are final and cannot be reviewed by us in this jurisdiction. The
judgment of Aurangabad Bench dated 24.04.2012 in Writ Petition No.
7116/2011 cannot operate as res judicata and therefore, we have dismissed the
fresh writ petitions which have come up for the first time before this Court. But,
then because of the view reached therein, judgment/orders which have
otherwise attained finality cannot be re-opened by us. Hence, in Contempt
petitions we grant time of 6 months to respective employers to fulfill the
obligations cast upon them by the respective judgment and / or orders of this
Court.
25. Civil Application No. 356/2015 has been filed by Zilla Parishad,
Wardha for condoning delay of 82 days in filing M.C.A.St.No. 3596/2015. That
M.C.A. is filed for review of judgment and order dated 31.10.2014 in Writ
Petition No. 2443/2014. Review is sought on the ground that untrained service
period is not relevant for any purposes and letter dated 24.04.2007 does not
prescribe any pay scale for untrained Shikshan Sevaks. The terms and
conditions of government resolution dated 27.04.2003 already mentioned supra
have been relied upon.
26. Said Writ Petition No.2443/2014 has been decided after hearing all
Judgment wp2440.14
the concerned. Review applicants were also then heard through their Advocate
while deciding that petition and thereafter, the view as taken at Aurangabad
Bench on 24.04.2012 in Writ Petition No. 7116/2011 has been followed and
acted upon. Other judgments/orders added at Nagpur were also looked into
then. Thus, the order has been passed after extending full opportunity to the
review applications. Present review is, therefore, an appeal in disguise against
that adjudication. Therefore, though we condone the delay, we find that no
case is made out warranting interference in review jurisdiction. Accordingly,
M.C.A.St. is rejected.
27. In this view of matter, we do not find any merit either in writ petitions
or the review petition. The same are dismissed. In contempt petitions we direct
the respective employer to deposit the amounts as per binding directions of this
Court with the registry of this Court within next six months. Accordingly Writ
Petition nos. 2440 and 2444 of 2014 and Review Petition no. C.A.O.
no.356/2015 in M.C.A.St.No.3596/2015 in W.P.No.2443/2014 are dismissed.
Rule discharged therein with no order as to costs. List the Contempt Petition
Nos. 147 and 166 of 2015 for further consideration on 5th April, 2016.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
