Bombay High Court
Dadasaheb Govindrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 3-wp2372-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2372 OF 2016
Dadasaheb s/o. Govindrao Shinde,
Age 27 years, Ooc. Service,
r/o. Flat No.2, Omkar Apartment,
Bhagyanagar, near Shivaji High
School, Old Ausa Road, Latur ..Petitioner
Vs.
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] Late Rangrao Deshmukh Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Shivji (Bk.),
Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur
Through its Secretary,
5] The Head Mistress,
Captain J.B. Primary,
School, Sonanagar,
Tq. and Dist. Latur ..Respondents
--
Mr.R.D.Biradar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:42:50 :::
2 3-wp2372-16.odt
Mr.D.S.Mali, Advocate for respondent no.3
Mr.N.B.Ghute, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5
--
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 08, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :
Heard.
2]
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
3] This petition takes exception to the order
dated 31.08.2015 issued by respondent no.3 by
which the proposal for approval of the petitioner
to the post of Assistant Teacher came to be
rejected.
4] It is the case of the petitioner that he was
selected as Assistant Teacher in respondent no.5 -
3 3-wp2372-16.odt
School after following the due procedure. The
respondent/Management vide communication dated
28.02.2014 sent the proposal for approval of the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher to
respondent no.3 - Education Officer. However,
respondent no.3 - Education Officer rejected the
said proposal on the ground that approval cannot
be granted as all the surplus teachers were not
absorbed.
5] The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14.06.2011. The
State Government issued a Government Resolution on
02.05.2012 i.e. after appointment of the
petitioner, by which the concerned institutions
were directed to absorb all the surplus teachers.
The institutions were also directed that unless
all the surplus teachers are absorbed, no fresh
appointments should be made. The learned Counsel
4 3-wp2372-16.odt
submits that as the petitioner was appointed prior
to the issuance of the above referred Government
Resolution, the proposal for approval of the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher ought
to have been sanctioned.
6] The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner further submits that since the
appointment of the petitioner is from S.T.
category, the ban to the recruitment imposed vide
Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012, would not
apply. He invited our attention to the unreported
decisions of this Court in the cases of (i)
Sushil s/o. Rangnath Waghmare Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and ors., in Writ Petition No.8893 of
2015 decided on 27.04.2016 and (ii) Gajanan s/o.
Valmik Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
ors. in Writ Petition No.11868 of 2015 and
companion matter decided on 03.03.2016. He also
invited our attention to the Government Resolution
5 3-wp2372-16.odt
dated 02.05.2012 issued by the General
Administrative Department, Government of
Maharashtra, by which the concerned institutions
were directed to fill up the backlog of
appointments from the S.C. and S.T. categories.
He submits that as the appointment of the
petitioner was made prior to the issuance of the
said Government Resolution and as the petitioner
belongs to S.T. category, the impugned
communication deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
7] On the other hand, the learned AGP for the
State and the learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no.3 vehemently oppose the prayer of
the petitioner and submit that unless all the
surplus teachers are absorbed, respondent no.5
should not have proceeded to advertise for filling
up the fresh posts.
6 3-wp2372-16.odt
8] The learned Counsel appearing for respondent
nos.4 and 5 submits that the appointment of the
petitioner was proper and since his appointment is
from reserved category, the reasons assigned by
respondent no.3 in the impugned communication
cannot sustain. Therefore, he submits that the
impugned communication deserves to be quashed and
set aside by giving directions to respondent no.3
to consider the proposal for approval to the
appointment of the petitioner afresh.
9] We have given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties. Admittedly,
the petitioner has been appointed for the said
post from the S.T. category. Nothing is brought
on record by respondent nos.1 to 3 to counter the
claim of the petitioner, that the petitioner
belongs to S.T. category. It is also not disputed
that the petitioner was appointed on 14.06.2011.
7 3-wp2372-16.odt
10] This Court while considering somewhat similar
controversy in the case of Sushil s/o. Rangnath
Waghmare (supra) in paragraphs 6 and 7, has
discussed about the relevant Government
Resolutions granting exemption to the institutions
from filling up the backlog of the posts from the
reserved category. After taking into consideration
the relevant Government Resolutions, this Court,
in the afore-stated case, reached to the
conclusion that if the appointments are made prior
to the issuance of Government Resolution dated
02.05.2012, the said Government Resolution dated
would not apply to such cases. Therefore, for the
reasons assigned in paragraph 6 in the case of
Sushil s/o. Rangnath Waghmare (supra) and
paragraph 6 in the case of Gajanan s/o. Valmik
Chavan (supra), we are of the opinion that the
controversy involved in this petition is squarely
covered. Therefore, in the light of the discussion
8 3-wp2372-16.odt
herein-above, the reasons assigned in the impugned
communication cannot sustain.
11] Accordingly, the impugned communication dated
31.08.2015 issued by respondent no.3 - Education
Officer is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3
is directed to reconsider the proposal for
approval of the petitioner to the post of
Assistant Teacher afresh without raising the
grounds/reasons assigned in the impugned
communication, as expeditiously as possible,
however, within four weeks from today and
communicate the said decision to respondent nos.4
and 5.
12] The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute
in the above terms. No costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
