Babrao Marotrao Manwar vs The Deputy Director Of Education, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1497 Bom

     wp4186.15                                                                            1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                
                      WRIT PETITION NO.  4186  OF  2015




                                                        
     Babarao Marotrao Manwar,
     aged 52 years, occupation -




                                                       
     Service, r/o Shankariya Nagar,
     Near Old Ajni, Nagpur.                             ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus




                                            
     1.  The Deputy Director of Education,
         Nagpur Region, Old Morris College
                             
         Premises, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

     2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
                            
        Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

     3. Indira Gandhi High School,
        run by Gram Gaurav Shikshan
      

        Sanstha Sahakarya Nagar, 
        Wardha Road, Nagpur through
   



        its Headmaster.                                 ...   RESPONDENTS.





     Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Ms. P.D. Rane, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
     Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
                           .....





                                                 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                               P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

APRIL 13, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with the consent of Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Ms. Rane, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Jagtap,

learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The effort of Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the

petitioner is to demonstrate that the petitioner being the only

Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I.) with B.P. Ed. qualification, ought

to have been recognized as trained P.T.I. right from day one and

refusal to do so is a breach of Government Resolution dated

14.05.1987. He has invited our attention to the judgment of this

Court dated 08.12.2014 in Writ Petition No. 422 of 2002 to urge that

this Court after noticing the controversy has placed back the matter

before Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur.

He further states that the impugned order passed thereafter on

02.03.2015 does not consider the impact of the Government

Resolution mentioned supra or the fact that in Respondent No. 3 -

School, the petitioner was/ is the only P.T.I.

3. The learned AGP is relying upon the reply affidavit. She

contends that the petitioner is claiming status as trained teacher only

because of other subjects which he was permitted to teach and for

teaching those subjects, B.Ed. is must. He was not possessing B.Ed.

Qualification, as such he has rightly been denied that status. She

also invites our attention to the case looked into by this Court in its

judgment dated 08.12.2014 (supra).

4. It is no doubt true that in paragraph 2 of judgment dated

08.12.2014, this Court then found it necessary to have material on

record demonstrating that the petitioner had full workload.

However, the directions in judgment do not in any way militate with

the Government Resolution dated 14.05.1987. If the petitioner is the

only P.T.I. holding B.P. Ed. qualification and a post of P.T.I. is

admissible to Respondent No. 3 - School, we fail to understand how

status as trained P.T.I. could have been declined to him. The

impugned order does not consider this aspect. Most probably

because of judgment dated 08.12.2014 of this Court, Respondent No.

1 has restricted scrutiny only to find out eligibility of the petitioner to

teach other subjects. The entitlement or eligibility of the petitioner,

as P.T.I., to trained status, which ought to have been looked into as

per Government Resolution dated 14.05.1987, therefore, has not

been evaluated.

5. In the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 mentions that

in 1992, School was not receiving grant-in-aid and as such there was

no approval to staff justification. It is further mentioned that after

School started receiving grants in 1994-95, one post of Head Master,

four posts of High School Teachers, one post of Assistant Teacher in

25% category and three Middle School Teachers were sanctioned till

1999-2000. Hence, this consideration ignores the need of providing

a P.T.I. in the School.

6. As such, we find the impugned order unsustainable. The

material placed on record by either side is not sufficient to answer

the question which arises for determination. We, therefore, find it

necessary to grant the petitioner an opportunity to point out all

relevant facts to Respondent No. 1. The petitioner can point out the

number of students in each year after his initial appointment, the fact

that he was / is the only P.T.I. and other relevant facts having

bearing on it, as per Government Resolution dated 14.05.1987.

Respondent No. 1 in that event can examine whether P.T.I. who does

not engage other subjects, is recognized in the past and has been

given trained status or not.

7. To enable Respondent No. 1 to undertake this exercise,

we set aside the impugned order dated 02.03.2015. The petitioner

as also Respondent No. 3 shall appear before Respondent No. 1 on

16.05.2016. Respondent No. 1 shall hear them, peruse the necessary

records and then take suitable decision in next three months.

8. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule

is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                         
                   JUDGE
                              ig                        JUDGE
                            
     *GS.