Bombay High Court
Pradeep Traymbakrao Sonawane And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
5028.2015WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5028 OF 2015
1] Pradeep s/o. Tryambakrao Sonawane,
Age 52 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. Zilha Parishad Primary School,
Nandra, Tq-Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon
2] Vitthal s/o. Ananda Sawkare,
Age-52 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. Z.P.Central Boys School
Pahurpeth [Boys], [Incharge Head
Master], Tq-Jamner,
Dist-Jalgaon PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, School
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
[Copy is served to the
Government Pleader]
2] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zillha Parishad Jalgaon.
3] The Education Officer [Primary]
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
4] The Secretary,
Rural Development & Water
Conservation Department,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:50:46 :::
5028.2015WP.odt
2
5] The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. S.K.Mathpati, Advocate for the
petitioners
Mr. S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 4
and 5.
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 12.04.2016
Pronounced on : 18.04.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
Heard.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard with the consent of the
parties.
3] By way of filing this Writ Petition,
the petitioners have taken exception to the
order dated 30th March, 2015, passed by
respondent nos. 2 and 3. By the impugned
order, the petitioners have been denied
5028.2015WP.odt
appointment to the post of trained graduate
Cluster Chief. It appears from perusal of
the impugned order that, the said order is
passed without assigning any reasons. The
impugned order only mentions 'अपात
B.Com.' [ineligible]. It further appears
that, in case of petitioner no.2 there is no
specific order but he has been orally told
that, he is not eligible for the appointment
to the said post. Petitioners also sought
directions to the respondents to appoint them
to the post of trained graduate Cluster Chief
on the basis of the seniority list prepared
by the Primary Section of Zilla Parishad,
Jalgaon [at Exhibit-H Page-65] of the
compilation of the Writ Petition.
4] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that without
assigning any reason, the respondents have
denied appointment to the petitioners to the
5028.2015WP.odt
post of trained graduate Cluster Chief. It
is submitted that the petitioners are
eligible to be appointed to the said post,
since their names have been included in the
seniority list, and also they possess
requisite qualifications and have experience
of teaching for more than 3 years. It is
submitted that the petitioners have been
appointed in eighties and they have rendered
satisfactory services and working as Incharge
Headmasters. It is submitted that both the
petitioners belong to reserved category and
keeping in view their length of service, the
Government Resolutions dated 14th November,
1994 and 2nd February, 2010, and also the
Circular dated 10th June, 2014, the
petitioners ought to have been appointed to
the post of trained graduate Cluster Chief.
Therefore, relying upon the pleadings and
grounds taken in the Petition as also the
annexures thereto, the learned counsel
5028.2015WP.odt
appearing for the petitioners submits that,
the Petition deserves to be allowed.
5] On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and
3, relying upon the averments in the
affidavit in reply submits that, the
petitioners are Graduates in Commerce, which
is not the subject for teaching in Zilla
Parishad School, and therefore, in view of
the Circular dated 10th June, 2014 issued by
the Department of Rural Development and Water
Conservation, the petitioners are not
entitled for the appointment to the said
post.
6] We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State, and the
learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.
2 and 3. With their able assistance, we have
5028.2015WP.odt
perused grounds taken in the Petition,
annexure thereto, and the reply filed by
respondent nos.2 and 3. It appears that,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 appointed some
employees to the post of trained graduate
Cluster Chief for 11 months on ad-hoc basis
in the year 2015. Admittedly, the said
period of 11 months is already over. The
petitioners were considered for appointment
on ad-hoc basis for the said post, however
their candidature has been turned down
without assigning any reason but by giving
remark 'अपात B.Com.' [ineligible]. The
impugned order does not reflect application
of mind by respondent nos. 2 and 3. The
impugned order suffers from non application
of mind.
7] The following facts are not in
dispute:-
Petitioner no. 1 was initially
appointed on 27th June, 1986 as an Assistant
5028.2015WP.odt
Teacher. He has completed postal D.Ed. and
B.Ed. qualifications in the year 1995 and
also obtained B.Com. degree even prior to the
year 1995. Petitioner no.1 is promoted as
Trained Graduate Teacher on 20th May, 2006,
and also is working as an Incharge Headmaster
since 1st April, 2015 at Nandra Primary
School, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon.
Petitioner no.1 belongs to S.T. category.
Petitioner No.2 belongs to S.C. category.
Petitioner no. 2 completed H.S.C. B.Com.
qualification in the year 1984 and he was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 28th
August, 1984 at Primary School Lohara, Taluka
Pachora, District Jalgaon. He has completed
Postal D.Ed. in the year 1992 and B.Ed. in
the year 1999. The names of the petitioners
have been included in the tentative seniority
list prepared by the Education Section
[Primary] Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon in the year
2015 for the purpose of considering their
5028.2015WP.odt
candidature for the appointment on the post
of trained graduate Cluster Chief.
8] Therefore, it was incumbent upon the
respondents to assign reasons while passing
the impugned order thereby rejecting the
claim of the petitioners to the said post.
The petitioners have rendered more than 30
years of service and their names have been
included in the seniority list. There is
considerable force in the arguments of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that in view of the policy declared by the
State Government since 1994 and since their
names are included in the seniority list
makes them eligible and entitled for the
appointment to the said post. The respondents
have not controverted the assertion of the
petitioners that, the petitioners taught
English subject in the said School upto 7th
Standard. The policy laid down by the State
Government is consistent in providing 30%
5028.2015WP.odt
reservation for the appointment to the said
post by way of promotion. The petitioners'
claim is from the promotional category.
According to them, since they are working for
more than 30 years as Assistant Teachers and
their names have been included in the
seniority list prepared by the respondent
Zilla Parishad, they are eligible to be
appointed to the post of trained graduate
Cluster Chief.
9] In our opinion, the respondents
ought to have considered the entire service
career of the petitioners while considering
their claim by way of promotion to the post
of Trained Graduate Cluster Chief. It is
difficult to understand as to why the
petitioners, who have more than 30 years
teaching experience to their credit and
their names have been included in the
seniority list, and they have also taught
various subjects including English in their
5028.2015WP.odt
service career, cannot be considered for the
said post. Since 11 months period of ad-hoc
appointees has come to an end, we do not wish
to elaborate our reasoning.
10] In the light of the discussion in
the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order
cannot sustain. The same stands quashed and
set aside. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are
directed to consider the claim of the
petitioners afresh as in-service candidates
from promotion category for the academic year
2016-2017, keeping in view the discussion in
the foregoing paragraphs. The respondents
shall keep in view the length of service,
that the petitioners belong to ST / SC
reserved category, their names were already
included in the seniority list on the basis
of prevailing policy of the State Government
and they taught English subject upto 7th
Standard in their School, etc.
5028.2015WP.odt
10] Petition is partly allowed. Rule
made absolute on the above terms. The
Petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
