Prakash Vyankat Durunde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3415 Bom

                                    1           23-wp10052.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                    
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                            
                     WRIT PETITION NO.10052 OF 2015

    Prakash Vyankat Durunde,
    Age 24 years, Occ. Service,
    r/o. Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,




                                           
    Dist.Osmanabad                              ..Petitioner

                  Vs.




                                   
    1. The State of Maharashtra,
       through its Secretary,
       Eduction Department,
       Mantralaya, 
       Mumbai - 32 
                              
                             
    2. The Head Master,
       Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar 
       Bahuddeshiya Prashala,
       Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,
      

       Osmanabad
   



    3. The Secretary,
       Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar 
       Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
       Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,





       Dist. Osmanabad

    4. The Education Officer,
       Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad                ..Respondents 





                             --
    Mr.D.R.Adhav, Advocate for petitioner

    Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for respondent no.1 and 4 

    Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi,   Advocate   i/b.   Mr.K.S.Bhore, 
    Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3




     ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016           ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:27:00 :::
                                             2           23-wp10052.odt


                                     CORAM :  S.S. SHINDE AND




                                                                            
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : JUNE 28, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned AGP appearing for

respondent nos.1 and 4 and the learned Counsel

appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent of the parties, the petition is heard

finally.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the proposal for approval to the appointment

of the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk has

been rejected by the Education Officer, on the

ground that no prior permission to advertise the

said post was obtained by the respondent -

Management and as the process of absorption of the

surplus teachers was in progress.

3 23-wp10052.odt

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner invites our attention to the

contentions in the letter written by the

respondent - Management to the Education Officer

on 28.09.2011 bearing Outward No.79/2011-12. It

appears that the said letter was received in the

Inward Section of the Office of the Education

Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad on

29.09.2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that the reasons assigned in the impugned

interse communication between the respondent -

Management and the Education Officer, cannot

sustain.

5. The learned AGP for the respondents, relying

on the reply of respondent nos.1 and 2, submits

that the reasons assigned by the Education Officer

in the impugned communication, are in consonance

with the record maintained by the Office of the

Education Officer and therefore, this Court may

not entertain this Writ Petition.

4 23-wp10052.odt

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent - Management submits that the

appointment of the petitioner was made after

following the due procedure as contemplated in the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, Act and

the Rules and therefore, this Writ Petition

deserves to be rejected.

7. We have given careful consideration to the

submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondent

nos.1 and 4 and the learned Counsel appearing for

respondent nos.2 and 3. With their able

assistance, perused the pleadings in the petition,

annexures thereto and the replies filed on behalf

of the respondents.

8. Upon careful perusal of the letter dated

28.09.2011 (Exhibit 'R-1') written by the

5 23-wp10052.odt

respondent - Management to the Education Officer,

it appears that the respondent - Management had

sought permission of the Education Officer to

advertise the said post. Further, the process to

advertise the said post was initiated in the year

2011 and the same was completed in February, 2012

by conduction interviews of the candidates.

Therefore, the ban imposed by the State Government

by Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012, issued

by the School Education and Sports Department,

Government of Maharashtra, would not be applicable

to the facts in the present petition.

9. In that view of the matter, the reasons

assigned by the Education Officer in the impugned

communication, being contrary to the record and

therefore, the same is quashed and set aside.

10. Respondent no.4 - Education Officer is

directed to reconsider the proposal for approval

6 23-wp10052.odt

to the appointment of the petitioner to the post

of Junior Clerk, as expeditiously as possible,

however, within a period of four weeks from today

and take a decision on the said proposal without

raising the grounds/reasons, which are assigned in

the impugned communication.

11. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the above

extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.

12. The parties to act on authenticated copies of

this order.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

kbp