Bombay High Court
Madhuri W/O Vinayak Khare (Ku. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 1 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5653.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5653/2016
PETITIONER: Madhuri w/o Vinayak Khare
(Ku. Madhuri d/o Rambhau Gadhapale)
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Nil, Resident
of Poonatoli, Behind Rest House, Shivaji
Ward, Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Gondia Education Society through its Secretary,
Gondia - 441614, District : Gondia.
3. Head Master, Godia Education Society's
High School, Navezari, Taluka Tirora,
District Gondia.
4. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Gondia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for petitioner
Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 01.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.
wp5653.16.odt
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent no.2 and 3 to absorb the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in
the circumstances of the case.
The petitioner claims to belong to Mairal Nomadic Tribe and
on the basis of her caste claim, she applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak
in the respondent no.2 - School. The petitioner was appointed as a
Shikshan Sevak on the post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes on
17.8.2009. The Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of
the petitioner. The caste claim of the petitioner was forwarded to the
Scrutiny Committee for verification. As the petitioner's caste claim was
pending and she did not submit the caste validity certificate, the
respondent nos.2 and 3 terminated the services of the petitioner in 2012.
The Scrutiny Committee verified the caste claim of the petitioner and
validated her claim of belonging to Mairal Nomadic Tribe on 13.3.2013.
After the caste claim of the petitioner was validated, the petitioner asked
the respondent nos.2 and 3 to reinstate her in the respondent no.2 -
School as she had secured the caste validity certificate. Since the
respondent nos.2 and 3 had not responded to the prayer of the petitioner,
the instant petition is filed.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
caste claim of the petitioner is validated by the Scrutiny Committee on
wp5653.16.odt
13.3.2013. It is stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated
on 17.8.2012 for not producing the caste validity certificate. It is stated
that the petitioner was not at fault in not producing the caste validity
certificate as the Scrutiny Committee could not decide her caste claim
expeditiously. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice, it would be necessary to direct the respondent nos.2
and 3 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, as she
has successfully completed her tenure as a Shikshan Sevak in the
respondent no.2 - School. The learned Counsel seeks appropriate
direction against the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 4 does not dispute that initially
approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of
Shikshan Sevak. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted
that in the circumstances of the cases, this Court may take an appropriate
decision.
Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2
and 3 submitted that the respondent nos.2 and 3 had rightly terminated
the services of the petitioner for not producing the caste validity
certificate in the year 2012. The learned Counsel, however, fairly
admitted that a post of Assistant Teacher is vacant in the respondent no.2
wp5653.16.odt
- School and if this Court so directs, the respondent nos.2 and 3 would
reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. The learned
Counsel states that the petitioner should however not be entitled to salary
for the period during which she was out of service.
In the circumstances of the case, the relief sought by the
petitioner needs to be granted. As rightly submitted on behalf of the
petitioner, the petitioner was not at fault in not producing the caste
validity certificate, as her caste claim was pending before the Scrutiny
Committee when her services were terminated and hence she could not
have produced the caste validity certificate. In this case, the caste claim of
the petitioner is validated and it is held by the Scrutiny Committee that
the petitioner has proved that she belongs to Mairal Nomadic Tribe. Since
the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the
Nomadic Tribes and since the petitioner belongs to Mairal Nomadic Tribe,
the services of the petitioner are required to be protected though she was
terminated in the year 2012. Since there is a vacancy in the post of
Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.2 - School, a direction could be
issued to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the
respondent nos.2 and 3 that though the petitioner would be entitled to
reinstatement, she would not be entitled to the back wages and salary for
wp5653.16.odt
the period during which she was out of service, as she has not worked
during the said period.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to reinstate the
petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.2 - School, within
one week. Though the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service
and the other benefits flowing from the order of continuity of service, the
petitioner would not be entitled to salary/back wages for the period from
the date of her termination till the date of her reinstatement.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
