Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jai Hind Education Trust, Dhule ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1133 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1133 Bom
Judgement Date : 2 April, 2016

Bombay High Court
Jai Hind Education Trust, Dhule ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
                                    1          30-wp4386-15.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                    
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO.4386 OF 2015 




                                            
    1] Jai Hind Education Trust, Dhule
       through its Director,
       Iccharam Gangaram Patil,




                                           
       Age Major, Occ. Legal Profession,
       r/o.Jai Hind Colony, Deopur,
       Dhule  




                                   
    2] The Head Master, 
       Jai Hind High School and Junior
       College, Dhule

                  versus
                               ig               ..Petitioners
                             
    1] The State of Maharashtra,
       Through Secretary,
       School Education and Sports 
       Department, Mantralaya,
      

       Mumbai 
   



    2] The Director of Education,
       Secondary and Higher Secondary,
       Pune





    3] The Deputy Director of Education, 
       Nashik Division, Nashik

    4] The Education Officer (Secondary)
       Zilla Parishad, Dhule             ..Respondents





                             --
    Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for petitioners

    Mr.S.G.Karlekar,, AGP for respondents - State
                             --




     ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016           ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2016 23:59:11 :::
                                             2          30-wp4386-15.odt




                                                                            
                                     CORAM :  S.S. SHINDE AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : APRIL 02, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :

Heard.

2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With

consent of the parties, the petition is taken up

for final hearing.

3] This petition takes exception to the order

passed by respondent no.4 on 20th December, 2014,

whereby one post of trained graduate teacher from

the approved staff of the petitioner no.2 -

school came to be cancelled permanently.

4] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the Education Officer had directed to

absorb the surplus teacher to teach Mathematics

subject, however, three vacancies, which were

3 30-wp4386-15.odt

advertised for appointment of the Assistant

Teachers, were for Science and Hindi subjects.

There was no vacancy for the teacher of

Mathematics subject. He further submits that the

Education Officer is not empowered to cancel the

approved post. He further submits that already the

petitioner - Institution has absorbed 13 surplus

teachers as directed by the respondent - Education

Officer. He further submits that a surplus teacher

about whom directions were given for absorption,

has been absorbed in another school by order dated

14th December, 2015 passed by the Education

Officer. The said teacher is absorbed in secondary

school namely, Adarsh Secondary School, Nijampur

Jaitane, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule, as stated by the

Education Officer in paragraph 9 of his affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore,

submits that the impugned order deserves to be set

aside.

                                      4          30-wp4386-15.odt


    5]     On the other hand, learned AGP, relying on the 




                                                                     

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the

respondents, submits that keeping in view the

State Government's policy, more particularly, the

Government Circular dated 14th October, 2014 issued

by the School Education and Sports Department,

Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, it

was incumbent upon the petitioners to absorb the

surplus teacher namely, Manoj Gangaram Choudhari,

as directed by the Education Officer and

therefore, on refusal of the petitioners to absorb

the said surplus teacher, the Education Officer

has cancelled one post. Therefore, this Court may

not entertain the present Writ Petition.

6] We have heard learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and learned AGP appearing for the

respondents - State. With their able assistance,

we have perused the pleadings in the petition,

grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, the

5 30-wp4386-15.odt

reply filed on behalf of the respondents - State

and Government Circular dated 14th October, 2014

reference of which, is already made herein above.

7] Upon careful perusal of the documents on

record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners

have absorbed 13 surplus teachers as directed by

the respondents. Apart from it, the assertion of

the petitioners that, there is no vacancy for the

teacher of Mathematics subject, has not been

denied by the respondents. It is also not stated

in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the

respondents that, when the respondent - Education

Officer cancelled one approved post, whether he

had sought approval from the higher

authorities/State Government for such drastic

action of cancellation of post. It is also

relevant to consider that the surplus teacher

namely, Manoj Gangaram Choudhari has already been

absorbed in another secondary school at Nijampur

6 30-wp4386-15.odt

Jaitane, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule, as stated by the

Education Officer in his affidavit-in-reply.

8] Therefore, keeping in view the discussion in

the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion

that the impugned order cannot sustain. The

respondent - Education Officer did not consider

the fact that the petitioner - Institution has

already absorbed 13 surplus teachers and there was

no post vacant for the teacher in Mathematics.

9] In the peculiar facts of the case, therefore,

the impugned order passed by the Education Officer

stands quashed and set aside.

10] The Writ Petition stands allowed on the above

terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] kbp

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter