Bombay High Court
Ku. Madhuri Jagobaji Katare And ... vs Deputy Director Of Education, ... on 27 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp6600-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.6600 of 2015
Ku. Madhuri Jagobaji Katare and another.
Vs.
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur & another.
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Rao, AGP for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Majit Shaikh, counsel for respondent no.2.
ig CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 27th April, 2016.
Heard for some time. Learned AGP upon
instructions states that matter is placed before the
Deputy Director of Education and Deputy Director of
Education shall hear petitioners and pass appropriate
orders.
We find that earlier school by name
Swavlambi Uccha Prathamik Vidyalaya, New
Subhedar Layout, Nagpur was de-recognized but
petitioners have not been found responsible for it in
any way. Their names were added in a list required
to be maintained under Rule 25 of Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules 1981. In due course of time, their names were
forwarded to Sant Eknath Upper Primary School,
2 wp6600-15
Didghori, Nagpur for absorption. They have reported
there and that management has permitted them to
join on the post of Assistant Teacher created due to
grant of additional section. Petitioners are working
there from 2012 and for work done they are getting
salary. As their salary is discontinued, the present
writ petition has been filed.
Advocate Jibhkate categorically states that
petitioners have not been paid any salary for the
period during which they were without work after
de-recognition of earlier school. Respondents did not
dispute this position. Their only contention is,
petitioners were from a school which was
de-recognized and their names were therefore
included in a list required to be maintained as per
Rule 25. At the most, their names could have been
forwarded to another management but there could
not have been recommendation to absorb them. The
then Education Officer erroneously issued a direction
to absorb them.
We find that grievance of this nature is
open only to management i.e. Sant Eknath Upper
Primary School, Dighori. That management has not
made any such grievance. Respondents have also not
pointed out that there was any other teacher
available with them on a list maintained under Rule
26 who could have been recommended for
3 wp6600-15
absorption and petitioners have superseded him.
In absence of this material on record, we
find that salary of present petitioners could not have
been discontinued.
In this situation, we direct respondents to
continue to release the salary of the petitioners for
work being done by them and only for that purpose
we quash and set aside the order dated 20.6.2015
and consequential order dated 10.7.2015.
ig However, it is open to respondents to
proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
With this liberty, we allow writ petition.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
