Bombay High Court
Usman Nizamoddin Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 13 December, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 2356.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2015
Usman S/o Nizamoddin Shaikh,
Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o Indira Nagar, A-P Kalamb,
Tq. Kalamb, Dist - Osmanabad. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Maharashtra,
School Education and Sports Department
Mantralay Vistar Bhavan,
Mumbai 32.
(Through its Principal Secretary)
2. Deputy Director of Education
Latur.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents
Shri Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate h/f Shri R. J. Godbole,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : TH DECEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final
hearing with consent of parties.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2016 00:52:33 :::
2 wp 2356.15
2. Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the petitioner at the relevant time was working as
a peon with Shri Shivaji Vidyalaya Karanjkalla, Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Osmanabad. The said school was derecognized. The
petitioner is not absorbed. The petitioner being a member of non
teaching staff, is nowhere concerned with imparting education.
According to the learned counsel, some of the members of the
teaching staff had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition
No. 340 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 348 of 2015. This Court
had directed those teachers shall be placed in the list of surplus
candidates and that they are not responsible for the closer of the
school. The said order was passed on 14th September 2016. The
petitioner was also permanent employee of the said school having
rendered service for 23 years.
3. Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned Additional Government
Pleader submits that, the school was derecognized. For last three
years the result of 10th standard was 00%. Various deficiencies
were noted. Considering the same and the provisions of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009,
the action was rightly taken. The petitioner is not required to be
absorbed.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2016 00:52:33 :::
3 wp 2356.15
learned counsel for respective parties. This Court under order
dated 14th September, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 340 of 2015 and
Writ Petition No. 348 of 2015 had allowed the petitions filed by
the teachers and had held that the teachers cannot be said to be
solely responsible for the closer of the school and were directed to
be absorbed. The petitioner it appears that, is a member of non
teaching staff, was working as a peon. The name of the
petitioner also appears in the list.
5. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 14 th September,
2016 in Writ Petition No. 340 of 2015 and Writ Petition NO. 348
of 2015, we pass following order.
: O R D E R :
a) The impugned order is set aside.
b) The respondent authority shall place the
petitioners in the list of surplus employees and as
per its turn, accommodate the petitioner in aided
institution.
c) It is made clear that the petitioner would not
be entitled for salary during the period he stood
terminated and till the time he is absorbed.
4 wp 2356.15
However, his services may be considered as per law
for the purpose of continuity.
d) Rule accordingly is made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Dec. 16
