Bombay High Court
Sushil Rangnath Waghmare vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
8893.2015WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8893 OF 2015
Sushil s/o. Rangnath Waghmare,
Age : 26 Yrs., Occu.: Service,
R/o. : Siddharth Nagar, Chakur,
Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur.
3] The Education Officer [Primary],
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
4] The Ramgir Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Chapoli, Tq.Chakur,
Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary
5] The Head Master,
Swami Vivekanand Primary
Vidyamandir Chapoli,
Tq.Chakur, Dist. Latur RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. R.D.Biradar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. B.V.Virdhe, AGP for Respondent - State
Mr. B.N.Bharaswadkar, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.4 and 5.
...
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:02:32 :::
8893.2015WP.odt
2
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 16.04.2016
Pronounced on : 27.04.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
1] Heard.
2] Rule.
ig Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3] This Petition is filed aggrieved by
the refusal to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner to the post of
Primary Teacher by respondent no.3.
4] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
appointed after following due procedure in
the year 2011, and therefore, the reasons
assigned in the impugned communication that,
there is ban on recruitment from 2nd May, 2012
cannot be considered as a valid ground for
8893.2015WP.odt
not granting approval to the appointment of
the petitioner as Primary Teacher. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
tendered across the bar the copy of
Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2013,
issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Maharashtra and
submitted that, by way of the said
Resolution, the Government of Maharashtra
granted extension of time so as to fill up
the post of Assistant Teacher from reserved
category as a Special Drive. He submits
that, the Government of Maharashtra initiated
Special Drive with effect from 14th April,
2011 to fill up various posts in the
Government employment from the candidates
belonging to backward categories so as to
clear the backlog, and by the said Government
Resolution, further time was extended upto
31st March, 2014.
5] The learned counsel appearing for
8893.2015WP.odt
the respective respondents, relying upon
the letter written by respondent no. 3 i.e.
the Education Officer [Primary], to
respondent no.5 submit that, the appointment
of the petitioner was during the period when
ban was imposed by the Government of
Maharashtra for new recruitment with a view
to absorb 327 teachers, who were declared
surplus.
6] We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused pleadings in the Petition,
annexures thereto and the Government
Resolution dated 21st August, 2013, issued by
the General Administration Department,
Government of Maharashtra. It reveals that
the petitioner was appointed in the year 2011
after following due procedure so as to fill
up the post of Primary Teacher from Scheduled
Caste category. The Government of Maharashtra
imposed ban on the new recruitment with
8893.2015WP.odt
effect from 2nd May, 2012. As already
observed, the petitioner was appointed in the
year 2011, therefore, at the relevant time
there was no ban for recruitment. In the
Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2013,
referred to above, it is clearly mentioned
that, with effect from 14th April, 2011,
Special Drive is taken to fill up the posts
from the backward class categories.
Therefore, the ban imposed by the State
Government on new recruitment with effect
from 2nd May, 2012, with a view to absorb
surplus teachers, could not have been made
applicable in the case of the present
petitioner for two reasons, firstly, the
petitioner's appointment was in the year
2011, and secondly, the appointment of the
petitioner was from the SC category.
7] In the above circumstances, the
reasons assigned by respondent no.3 for
rejecting the proposal for approval to the
8893.2015WP.odt
appointment of the petitioner cannot sustain.
Therefore the communication dated 16.07.2015
issued by respondent no. 3 to respondent no.5
stands quashed and set aside. Respondent no.
3 is directed to reconsider the proposal for
approval to the appointment of the petitioner
to the post of Primary Teacher and take
decision as expeditiously as possible,
however, within six weeks from today.
Respondent no. 3 shall not reject the
proposal on the same grounds, which have been
assigned in the communication dated
16.07.2015. Needless to observe that, in
case respondent no. 3 takes decision to
approve appointment of the petitioner,
respondent no. 5 shall submit salary bills of
the petitioner, if already not submitted,
immediately within two weeks of granting such
approval and on receipt of such salary bills,
respondent no.3 shall take decision on it,
keeping in view the procedure and relevant
8893.2015WP.odt
Rules as expeditiously as possible, however,
within four weeks from receiving such salary
bills.
8] Rule made absolute on the above
terms. Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
