Sushilkumar Ramnath Nagpure vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3484 Bom

                                                            10364.2015WP.odt
                                           1




                                                                       
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                               
                            WRIT PETITION NO.10364 OF 2015 

              Sushilkumar s/o. Ramnath Nagpure,  




                                              
              Age 46 Years, Occ : Service as 
              A Head Master, Pandurang 
              Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Warur, tq.  
              Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar         PETITIONER




                                        
                               VERSUS 

              1.
                             
                       The State of Maharashtra 
                       Through its Secretary,  
                       Education Department,  
                            
                       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.  

              2.       The Education Officer 
                       [Secondary] 
                       Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.  
      


              3.       The President / Secretary,  
   



                       Shri Marutrao Ghule Patil 
                       Education Society, Bhenda 
                       Taluka Newasa District 
                       Ahmednagar                   RESPONDENTS 





                                   ...
              Mr.A.N.Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner 
              Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 
              Mr.M.S.Taur, Advocate for Respondent No.3. 





                                   ...

                              CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                      SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ. 

Reserved on : 13.06.2016 Pronounced on : 29.06.2016

10364.2015WP.odt

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

This Petition takes exception to the

inter-se communication between the Secretary/

President/Headmaster/Administrator of Shri.

Marutrao Ghule Patil Education Society,

Bhenda, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar

and the Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla

Parishad, Ahmednagar, dated 3rd September,

2015 [Exhibit-F Page-32].

2. The learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the reasons

assigned by the Education Officer for refusal

of approval to the appointment of the

petitioner as Headmaster is not sustainable.

He submits that the management decided to

appoint the petitioner as Headmaster by

passing a Resolution dated 1st July, 2015.

The proposal was submitted to the Education

Officer for approval to the appointment of

the petitioner. When the petitioner was

10364.2015WP.odt

appointed, he was possessing qualification of

M.A. B.Ed. and on the basis of the said

qualification, he was appointed as an

Assistant Teacher on 13th April, 1996. He

invited our attention to the various

documents placed on record by which the

approval to the appointment of the petitioner

is granted by the Education Officer. He

submits that the respondent management is

running only Secondary Schools and therefore,

the initial appointment of the petitioner was

in the Secondary School namely Jijamata

Madhyamik and Uchchya Madhyamik Vidyalaya.

As such the petitioner is teaching to the

students of the Secondary School from his

initial appointment as Assistant Teacher.

3. The learned counsel also invites our

attention to the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (b)

of the Maharashtra Employees of Private

Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981

('MEPS Rules' for short) and submits that the

10364.2015WP.odt

petitioner's case is fully covered by the

said Rule and therefore, the management has

rightly appointed him as Headmaster so as to

fill up in the backlog of the Special

Backward Category. Therefore, relying upon

the pleadings in the Petition, annexures

thereto, the relevant provisions of the MEPS

Rules, various orders passed by this Court

and also the judgment of the Bombay High

Court in the case of New English High School

Vs. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade and Anr.1, he

submits that the Petition deserves to be

allowed.

4. On the other hand, the learned AGP

appearing for the respondent - State submits

that the initial appointment of the

petitioner was in D.Ed. pay scale and his

name is also included in the seniority list

prepared by the respondent management and

duly approved by the Education Officer from

1 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 882

10364.2015WP.odt

S.S.C. D.Ed. category. There were two

separate seniority lists for the candidates,

who were appointed from the S.S.C. D.Ed pay

scale and trained Graduate pay scale.

5. The learned counsel appearing for

the respondent - management relying upon the

affidavit-in-reply submits that the

management, keeping in view the roster and

vacancy position, appointed the petitioner on

the post of Headmaster so as to fill up in

the backlog of the Special Backward Category.

However, respondent no.3 has filed short

affidavit wherein it is stated that the

management has maintained the seniority lists

of the teachers who are working in D.Ed. pay

scale and B.Ed. pay scale separately. The

name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.7

in the category of D.Ed. pay scale. The

petitioner belongs to Koshti Class, which is

recognized as Special Backward Category.

There are 15 teachers, who are working in the

10364.2015WP.odt

D.Ed. pay scale in the various schools run by

respondent no. 3 society. The teachers, who

are working in B.Ed. pay scale, their

seniority list is maintained separately and

the names of 78 teachers appear in the said

list. The petitioner possesses B.Ed.

qualification, however, he is working in

D.Ed. pay scale, and therefore, the name of

the petitioner is included in the seniority

list of the teachers, who are working in the

D.Ed. pay scale.

6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to

the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent

no. 2 and stated that the factual position

stated by respondent no.3 in the additional

short affidavit is not correct. The

petitioner was appointed considering his

qualification as M.A. B.Ed. and therefore the

statement made in the reply filed by

respondent no.2 that the petitioner is

appointed on the basis of qualification of

10364.2015WP.odt

S.S.C. D.Ed. is incorrect and contrary to the

documents on record.

7. We have heard the learned counsel

appearing for the respective parties. Upon

careful perusal of the documents placed on

record, replies and rejoinder filed by the

parties, we are of the opinion that, the

petition raises disputed questions of fact

and therefore, it would be appropriate to

relegate the parties before the Education

Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,

Ahmednagar so as to afford the parties

opportunity of hearing and to place on record

the documents in support of their

contentions. Hence the following order:

i) The impugned communication dated 3rd

September, 2015 (Exhibit-F) so far as it

relates rejection of proposal of approval to

the appointment of the petitioner to the post

of Head Master stands quashed.

10364.2015WP.odt

ii) The parties shall appear before the

Education Officer (Secondary) on 2nd July,

2016. The parties will be at liberty to place

on record the documents, if any, for

consideration of the Education Officer. The

Education Officer may hear the parties on the

same day or may fix the date in near future

for further hearing and after hearing the

parties, take decision whether to grant

approval to the services of the petitioner as

Headmaster or otherwise.

iii) This Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the claim of the

petitioner. So far the contentions raised on

merits by the parties, it is for the

Education Officer (Secondary) to take

appropriate decision, after hearing the

parties keeping in view the documents placed

on record by the parties and record

maintained by the respondents, as

10364.2015WP.odt

expeditiously as possible, however, within 8

weeks from today and communicate the decision

to the petitioner and also respondent no.3

management.

iv) Since the petitioner is already

working as Headmaster by virtue of the

Resolution passed by the respondent no. 3

management, we direct the respondents to

maintain status quo in respect of the post

held by the petitioner as on today, until the

Education Officer (Secondary) decides the

issue.

v) The Writ Petition is disposed of in

the above terms. No costs. The parties shall

act upon authenticated copy of this order.

                               Sd/-                            Sd/-
               (SANGITRAO S.PATIL)          (S.S.SHINDE)
                     JUDGE                     JUDGE  
              DDC