Bombay High Court
Gajanan Valmik Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 March, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
11868.15wp+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 11868 OF 2015
&
WRIT PETITION NO.11869 OF 2015
Gajanan s/o Valmik Chavan,
age 29 years, occu. Service,
r/o c/o F.M. Lalwani Secondary School,
Betawad, Tq. Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule. ...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
3. The Zilla Parishad,
Dhule,
through its Chief Executive Officer.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
5. Janta Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha,
Betawad, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule,
through its President -
Shri Ashok S/o Shriram Gujar,
age Major, Occu. Social Work and Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:40:02 :::
11868.15wp+
2
r/on Janta Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha,
Betwada, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule.
6. Head Master
Shri F.M. Lalwani Secondary School,
Betawad, Tq. Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Talekar S.B.
AGP for Respondents: Mr.D.R. Kale.
Advocate for Respondents 5 & 6: Mr.Deshmukh N. E.
...
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.11869 OF 2015
Santosh s/o Shivaji Valvi,
age 31 years, Occu. Service,
r/o c/o F.M. Lalwani Secondary School,
Betawad,
Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule. ..PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
3. The Zilla Parishad,
Dhule,
through its Chief Executive Officer.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
5. Janta Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha,
Betawad, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule,
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:40:02 :::
11868.15wp+
3
through its President -
Shri Ashok S/o Shriram Gujar,
age Major, Occu. Social Work and Agril.,
r/on Janta Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha,
Betwada, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule.
6. Head Master
Shri F.M. Lalwani Secondary School,
Betawad, Tq. Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Talekar S.B.
AGP for Respondents: Mr.S.B. Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondents 5 & 6: Mr.Deshmukh N. E.
ig ...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
Dated: March 03, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per SHINDE, J]
1. These petitions have been filed, being aggrieved by
orders of the respondent No.4 - Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule refusing approval
to the appointments of the petitioners as Shikshan
Sevak. There are letters / orders passed by the
respondent No.4 expressing inability to grant approval to
the appointment of the petitioners on the grounds which
are mentioned in those letters.
11868.15wp+
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners invited our
attention to the letter written by the respondent No.4
dated 21st December, 2012 and submits that, before the
posts were advertised, permission from the Education
Officer was sought; however, there was no response from
the office of the respondent No.4 and the management
wanted to fill in the posts from the reserved category
candidates, respondent management proceeded to
advertise the posts on 29th December, 2012. He submits
that, the fact that permission of the Education Officer
was sought by letter dated 21st December, 2012 is not in
dispute. He further submits that, all the posts of
Shikshan Sevak were advertised for various reserved
categories. Two posts were advertised for Scheduled
Tribe Category and third post for the V.J.N.T. Category.
It is submitted that, in all 27 applications were received
in pursuant to the advertisement and after adhering to
the procedure, the petitioners were selected and appoint
letters were issued in their favour. After appointments of
the petitioner and other two candidates from reserved
category, proposal was sent to the respondent No.4 for
11868.15wp+
approval. However, the respondent No.4 in his letter
dated 24.11.2013 addressed to the respondents No.5 and
6 pointing out six deficiencies / requirements at the end
of management. Out of 6 deficiencies, four deficiencies
were cured and the proposal was re-submitted to
respondent No.4. He further submits that, by another
letter, respondent No.4 communicated to the
respondents No.5 and 6 that, approval to the
appointment of the petitioners is rejected on the ground
that though, during the period when the petitioners were
appointed, there was general ban to go ahead with the
recruitment in view of the fact that surplus teachers were
required to be absorbed, the respondent No.6 went ahead
with the recruitment process and appointed the
petitioners and other three candidates; and second
reason assigned was that, no prior permission was taken
by the respondent No.6 from the respondent No.4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, both
the grounds are not sustainable inasmuch as, there is no
denial to the fact that, respondent No.6 had written letter
to the respondent No.4 to allow the respondent No.6 to
11868.15wp+
fill in the posts from reserved category so as to fill in the
backlog of those posts. He further invited our attention
to the Government Resolution dated 10 th April, 2012
(Exh.L, page 49 to the compilation of the petitions) and
submits that, by said resolution, time to fill in those
posts from the reserved category was extended till 31 st
March, 2013. Therefore, the process undertaken by the
respondent No.6 by issuing advertisement dated 29 th
December, 2012 was during the extended period to fill in
the posts from backlog and, therefore, the action of the
respondent No.6 to advertise the posts and fill in the
backlog was justified in view of the extended period for
filling in the backlog till 31st March, 2013. Therefore,
learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the
petitions deserve to be allowed.
He further submits that, not only the petitioners
but, other one candidate has completed three years
satisfactory service and on expiry of three years
satisfactory service, they have become deemed
permanent employees and, therefore, the respondent
11868.15wp+
No.4 may be directed to grant approval to the
appointments of the petitioners.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondents No.5 and
6 invited our attention to the averments in the affidavit-
in-reply and submits that, for the inaction on the part of
the respondent No.4 in not giving timely instructions to
the respondent No.6 to absorb surplus teachers and not
acting upon the letter written by respondent No.6 on 21 st
December, 2012, the respondent No.6 proceeded to
advertise the posts and after adhering to the procedure
established, appointed the candidates after proper
selection process. He submits that, it appears that, there
are seven vacant posts in the respondent No.5 and 6 -
institutions. However, there are no any instructions
from the respondent No.4 for absorption of any surplus
teacher. As a matter of fact, two posts have been filled in
out of surplus teachers as per the directions of
respondent No.4. He, therefore, submits that this Court
may pass appropriate orders taking in view the material
placed on record.
11868.15wp+
4. On the other hand, learned AGP invited our
attention to the averments in the affidavit-in-reply and
submits that, the respondent No.4 by his letter dated
24.11.2013 addressed to the respondents No.5 and 6
pointed out six deficiencies / requirements on the part of
the management. He further submits that, by another
letter, respondent No.4 communicated to the
respondents No.5 and 6 that, approval to the
appointment of the petitioners is rejected on the ground
of general ban to recruitments and that, no prior
permission was taken by the respondent No.6 from the
respondent No.4. Therefore, the learned AGP submits
that the petition may be rejected.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners,
learned AGP appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4
and the learned Counsel for respondents No.5 and 6;
with their able assistance, perused the pleadings in the
petition, annexures thereto, affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondents, and the relevant Government Resolution.
11868.15wp+
6. Upon careful perusal of the Government Resolution
dated 10th April, 2012 issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra
(Exh.L page 49 to the compilation of the petitions), it is
abundantly clear that, for filling in the posts from
reserved categories so as to complete the backlog, time
was extended till 31st March, 2013 and the respondent
No.6 advertised the posts in the month of December,
2012. That too, after addressing a letter to the
respondent No.4 on 21st December, 2012 seeking
permission for advertising the posts. Therefore, the
ground that there was General Ban for the recruitment
by the State Government and therefore, respondent No.6
should not have proceeded with the recruitment is devoid
of any merits and said ground cannot sustain in the light
of the Government Resolution dated 10th April, 2012.
7. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, there is no denial to the fact that, letter dated
21st December, 2012 written by the respondent No.6 to
11868.15wp+
the respondent No.4 was received by the office of the
respondent No.4. Therefore, if at all the respondent No.4
wanted to give contrary instructions, not to go ahead
with the recruitment process, at any stage after receipt
of said letter, including at the midst of the selection
process, it was possible for the respondent No.4 to issue
such instructions to the respondent No.6. However, it
appears that, respondent No.4 allowed the respondent
No.6 to go ahead with the selection process in pursuance
to the advertisement. Admittedly, all the three
candidates who participated in the selection process and
got selected, are from reserved categories as shown in the
advertisement. Therefore, there is no dispute to the fact
that the advertisement was issued to fill in the posts
from reserved categories so as to complete the backlog.
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, that out of six deficiencies / requirements
pointed out vide letter dated 24.11.2013 written by the
respondent No.4 to the Management, four deficiencies
were complied with by the respondent No.6. The letter
dated 1st September, 2014 written by the respondent
11868.15wp+
No.4 to the management mentions only two deficiencies;
firstly, there was General Ban and secondly, no prior
permission was taken before advertising the posts.
8. In the light of the discussion herein above, it is
clear that, both the grounds cannot sustain. Therefore,
the inevitable conclusion is that, the impugned
communications / orders deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
9. In the result, writ petitions are allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (A). We direct the respondent No.4 to
consider the proposals for approval to the appointments
of the petitioners, afresh and without raising the grounds
/ deficiencies raised in the impugned communications,
subject to compliance of other formal procedure /
requirements and take decision, as expeditiously as
possible; however, within six weeks from today and
communicate the said decision to the petitioners and
respondents No.5 and 6.
11868.15wp+
Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly. Rule
made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this
judgment.
[P.R. BORA, J)] [ S.S. SHINDE, J ]
.....
Kadam.
