Ashok Venkatrao Bajgir vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2802 Bom

                                                                   7178.2015WP.odt
                                                 1




                                                                             
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                             WRIT PETITION NO.7178 OF 2015 

              Ashok s/o. Venkatrao Bajgir,  




                                                    
              Age 48 Years, Occu : Service,  
              R/o. Mojmabad Tanda, Tq. Palam,  
              Dist. Parbhani.                   PETITIONER 

                         VERSUS 




                                        
              1]       The State of Maharashtra, 
                             
                       Through Secretary, 
                       Social Justice and Special Assistance 
                       Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.  
                            
                       [Copy to be served on G.P.  
                       High Court of Bombay Bench 
                       at Aurangabad]  

              2]       The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,  
      


                       Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.  
   



              3]       The Assistant Commissioner,  
                       Social Welfare Department,  
                       Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani 





              4]       Jaibhavani Prathamik Ashram School,  
                       Mojmabad Tanda, Tq. Palam,  
                       District: Parbhani,  
                       Through its Headmaster.         RESPONDENTS
                                    ...





              Mr.A.D.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner 
              Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
              Mr.C.T.Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.4. 
                                    ...
                              CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                      SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ. 

Reserved on : 09.06.2016 Pronounced on : 14.06.2016

7178.2015WP.odt

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

The learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner has tendered across the Bar

Government Resolution dated 28th April, 2014,

issued by the Social Justice and Special

Assistance Department, Government of

Maharashtra, the same is taken on record.

2] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

and heard forthwith with the consent of the

parties.

3] The petitioner has filed present

Writ Petition seeking following relief:

B) To direct respondents to accord approval in favour of petitioner as a trained graduate primary teacher

w.e.f. his initial date of appointment i.e. 01.07.1999 and also grant all consequential benefits including pay scale of trained graduate primary teacher by issuing writ of mandamus or any other

7178.2015WP.odt

necessary writ or directions as the case may be;

4] It is the case of the petitioner

that, the petitioner is having qualification

of B.A. B.P.Ed. [B.Ed. Physical] and

appointed as an Assistant Teacher in

respondent No.4 School w.e.f. 01.07.1999.

Respondent No.4 School is a Primary Ashram

School, having classes of 1st to 7th Standard.

There are in all total 9 posts of teachers

approved as per the staffing pattern, in

which 7 posts of teachers are getting the pay

scale of trained teacher having D.Ed.

qualification, 1 post of trained graduate

primary teacher is vacant and 1 post of

Headmaster. By taking into consideration the

ratio of 25:75, two posts of trained graduate

primary teachers are admissible.

5] It is further the case of the

petitioner that, as per Government Resolution

dated 01.06.2000, the candidates who are

7178.2015WP.odt

having qualification of B.P.Ed. [B.Ed.

Physical] and appointed in primary school

having classes of 1st to 7th standards, are

considered as trained teachers and as per

Government Resolution dated 28th April, 2014,

the teachers appointed in primary school,

having 1st ig to 7th standards of B.Ed.

qualification, are entitled to be considered

as a trained graduate primary teacher from

their date of initial appointment. The

respondents denied the status of the

petitioner as the trained graduate primary

teacher only on the ground that the

petitioner is B.P.Ed. and not B.Ed. Hence

this Writ Petition.

6] The learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the issue has

already been decided in the cases of State of

Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trambak Chaudhari1,

Chandrakant s/o. Rajdhar Desale and others

1 2007 AIR SCW 1321

7178.2015WP.odt

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in

Writ Petition No.3888/2010 decided on

29.04.2011 and in the matter of Subhash

Kisanrao Mangnale Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.

6253/2014 decided on 09.06.2015. This Court

has considered ig that, the B.P.Ed.

qualification under the bifocal course is

qualification for being appointed as trained

graduate teacher in primary Ashram School and

also directed to consider the petitioners

therein as trained graduate primary teachers.

7] He further submits that there cannot

be denial of status of trained graduate

primary teacher only on the ground that, the

petitioner is not B.Ed. even though, there is

one post vacant for trained graduate primary

teacher in respondent No.4 school. The

petitioner is not having other alternative

except to approach this Court for seeking

direction.

7178.2015WP.odt

8] The learned AGP appearing for

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 relying upon the

averments in the affidavit-in-reply submits

that the petitioner is not appointed as

trained graduate teacher. His initial

appointment is to the post of Assistant

Teacher. The Government Resolutions dated

01.06.2000 and 11.11.2011 issued by the

School Education Department are not

applicable to the case of the present

petitioner. The petitioner is not holding

B.Ed. degree, which is the basic requirement

of Government Resolution dated 28.04.2014

issued by the Social Welfare Department. The

judgments relied on by the petitioner are not

applicable to the present case.

9] The learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.4 relying upon the averments in

the affidavit-in-reply filed by the said

respondent submits that there is no Assistant

7178.2015WP.odt

Teacher taking the benefits of the pay scale

of trained graduate teacher in the School,

since no one is having the qualification as

B.A. B.Ed. or B.A. B.P.Ed. except the present

petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner

being a trained graduate is entitled to get

the pay scale available to the trained

graduate teachers.

10] We have carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the respective parties. We

have also perused the documents filed on

record. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner was appointed as an Assistant

Teacher in respondent No.4 School with effect

from 1st July, 1999. It is also not in

dispute that on the date of his appointment,

the petitioner was holding the qualification

of B.A. B.P.Ed. In the petition, the

petitioner has stated his qualification as

B.A. B.P.Ed. [B.Ed. Physical] on the date of

7178.2015WP.odt

his appointment. Moreover, as stated earlier,

this fact has not been disputed by the

respondent. The approval letter filed on

record by the petitioner at Exhibit-A

collectively under the signature of Special

District Social Welfare Officer, Parbhani,

reveals that, the appointment of the

petitioner was approved for the period in

between 01.07.2002 to 30th April, 2004 in the

pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. Another approval

order placed on record by the petitioner at

Exhibit-B [Page 19-20] reveals that, the

services of the petitioner were approved on

permanent basis by the Special District

Social Welfare Officer, Parbhani, w.e.f.

01.05.2006.

11] Considering the undisputed facts as

enumerated in the above paras, we find that

the case of the present petitioner is

squarely covered by the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

7178.2015WP.odt

Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari

[supra] and unreported judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Ramrao Jaimal Bacchav and ors. Vs. The State

of Maharashtra and ors. in Writ Petition No.

478/2011, delivered on 11.10.2012.

12]

The Division Bench of this Court

[Coram: S.S.Shinde & P.R.Bora, JJ.] in Writ

Petition No.5997 of 2014 [Sunil s/o. Kisanrao

Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra &

others], decided on 17th December, 2015, while

considering the similar issue / controversy

in para 8 to 10 observed thus:

8) In the case of Tukaram and ors, the petitioners were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification

and they had been appointed to teach in primary school conducting classes up to the 7th standard. In most of the cases, approval was granted for their appointment as trained teachers. Subsequently, however they

7178.2015WP.odt

were informed that they would be treated as untrained teachers and

would be paid their salaries accordingly. The said petitioners challenged the said decision by

filing the writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court, and

the petitioners were held eligible

and qualified to continue to receive their salaries as trained teachers

from the date on which they were appointed along with all consequential benefits.

9) The aforesaid Division Bench

judgment was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere

in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

10) The facts involved in the case of Ramrao and ors. are also identical to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case of Ramrao and ors., the petitioners were primary teachers working in

7178.2015WP.odt

Ashram Schools having classes from 1st to 7th standards, and all those

petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers since they were possessing

B.A.B.P.Ed.qualification. Initially, all those petitioners were being paid in the pay scale for trained

graduate ig teachers, however, subsequently they were directed to be treated as untrained teachers

since they were not possessing D.Ed. qualification. The learned Division Bench of this Court relying upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the Case of Tukaram and ors., and the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of

Govind Narayan Gunjal (Writ Petition No.6437/2007 and connected writ petitions, decided on 12.03.2008) allowed the writ petition by holding

that, the petitioners are entitled to be paid trained primary teacher's pay scale.

13] We, reiterate that the facts

7178.2015WP.odt

involved in the preset case are identical to

the facts in the cases cited supra. As such,

the decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases

will be squarely applicable to the facts of

the present case. Moreover, the petitioner

has also placed reliance on the Government

Resolution dated 28th April, 2014, issued by

the Social Justice and Special Assistance

Department, Government of Maharashtra,

wherein in para (B), it has been prescribed

that teachers holding trained graduate

qualification are entitled to be paid trained

teacher's (D.Ed.) pay scale (Rs.5200 to Rs.

20200 + Grade pay Rs.2800). It is also

recorded in the said Government Resolution

that such of the teachers are entitled to be

paid trained primary teacher's pay scale from

the date of their appointment.

14] In view of the above, the writ

petition deserves to be allowed, and hence

the following order:

7178.2015WP.odt

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The respondents are directed to

extend to the petitioner the benefit of trained teacher's pay scale from the date of his appointment i.e. 01.07.1999 and pay to

the petitioner, the salary as applicable to

the trained teachers on regular basis and pay to the petitioner the arrears from the date

of receipt of the grants and extend to him all benefits of trained teacher from the date of his appointment for all purposes.

(iii) Rule is made absolute. No order as

to costs.

                       Sd/-                       Sd/-





               [SANGITRAO S.PATIL]           [S.S.SHINDE]
                     JUDGE                      JUDGE  
              DDC