Bombay High Court
Meena Prabhakar Tigote vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 March, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
7680.14WP
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7680 OF 2014
Meena d/o Prabhakar Tigote
Age : 36 years, Occ : Household/Service,
R/o Gawali Nagar, Near Anand
Prathamik School, Nanded Road,
Latur. ig ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Director of Education
Research & Training Center,
Pune, Dist. Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of Education
Division Latur, Near Gandhi Chowk,
Latur.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur.
5. Samta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Through its Secretary, Varsha Niwas,
Nanded Road Shahu Nagar, Latur.
6. The Head Master
Siddarth Prathamik Vidyalaya,
Rajiv Nagar, Latur.
..RESPONDENTS
...
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2016 00:02:27 :::
7680.14WP
2
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R.D. Biradar
APP for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. S.D. Kaldate
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. U.B. Bondar
Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 : Mr. A.S. Shejwal
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
P.R. BORA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25th February, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th March, 2016
JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers :-
"b) Respondent No.4 be directed to include the
petitioner in surplus list of teachers dated
26.6.2014 (annexed at Exhibit-A) and kindly be
directed to release the salary of petitioner.
(bb) To quash and set aside order dtd.
31/12/2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e.
Director of Education, Research and Training
Center, Pune, Dist. Pune by which postal D.Ed. of
petitioner is cancelled and the Respondent
authority be directed to pay the arrears of petitioner
7680.14WP
from 26/6/1995 till today."
3. The brief facts leading for filing this Writ
Petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as untrained
teacher on 26.6.1995, and her appointment has been
continued by the management by issuing appointment
orders from time to time, and she is in continuous service.
The management prepared the surplus table in the year
2003-2004, and also prepared seniority list, and petitioner's
name is shown at Sr.No.11 of the said list. On 6.9.2003 the
Education Officer issued staff approval and the school also
prepared the list of teachers class-wise for the year 2000-
2001. The petitioner completed Postal D.Ed. Course on
6.6.2005.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, on
26.7.2005, a show cause notice was issued by the Deputy
Director, Maharashtra State Education, Research and
Training Center, Pune, to the petitioner, and others,
suspecting the record of the Postal D.Ed. Course completed
by them. Though petitioner submitted her explanation, it
was not accepted and the authority cancelled the Postal
7680.14WP
D.Ed. Qualification of more than 300 teachers, including
petitioner, on 31.12.2005. Aggrieved teachers preferred
various Writ Petitions in the High Court, and order dated
31.12.2005 was stayed, and thereafter the High Court
allowed some Writ Petitions. The petitioner did not challenge
the order dated 31.12.2005 at the relevant time, but she is
in continuous service. It is the case of the petitioner that,
thereafter the school has prepared the seniority list for the
year 2006-07, and the Education Officer has given staff
approval on various dates and, as per the list for the year
2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, the petitioner's name is shown
at Sr. No.11. It is the case of the petitioner that, on
24.01.2012, 25.01.2012 and 08.02.2012, the Education
Officer has written letters to the Respondent No.6 and
directed to absorb the petitioner in service and release her
salary, and further directed to cancel illegal approval given
to other teachers instead of accommodating the petitioner as
trained teacher. The Assistant to Secretary, Maharashtra
State written letters on 31.01.2012 and 29.02.2012 to the
Director, Maharashtra State Education and Research
Training Center, Pune and Divisional Deputy Director of
Education, Latur division in respect of the absorption to the
7680.14WP
petitioner and releasing her salary. Thereafter, the
Respondent No.4 directed to enquire and submit report and
accordingly the Deputy Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Latur after enquiry submitted report on 27.08.2012.
Thereafter, as per the directions of the Education Officer,
the Head Master of the school allowed the petitioner to join
the services regularly and the proposal was submitted to
the Education Officer for approval to the post of the
petitioner.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as
per the list dated 20.03.2014, the name of the petitioner
was shown at sr. no.4 and the Education Officer by letter
dated 26.04.2012 has given permanent approval w.e.f.
21.04.2012 to the petitioner. Thereafter on 31.10.2013, the
headmaster of the school had written a letter to Education
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and stated that, one teacher is
less in the surplus list, and requested for granting approval
to the surplus teachers. It is the case of the petitioner that,
on 27.05.2014, the Respondent No.4 has written letter to
the Respondent No.5, and directed to provide the
information in respect of surplus teachers or non-teaching
7680.14WP
employees, therefore, the Respondent No.5 provided the
detail information in respect of the surplus employees by
covering letter dated 29.05.2014.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on
17.06.2014, 23.06.2014, 30.06.2014 and 03.07.2014 the
petitioner made representations to the Respondent No.4 and
requested to include her name in the list of surplus
teachers, but the Respondent No.4 has not considered the
representations of the petitioner and not included her name
in the said list dated 26.06.2014. It is the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner has also taken objection on
30.06.2013, in respect of removing her name from surplus
teachers list, but till today the said objection has not been
decided by the Education Officer. Hence this Writ Petition.
7. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed the
affidavit in reply. It is stated in the said affidavit in reply
that, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and she
is in continuous service, since her date of appointment. On
31st December, 2005, the postal D.Ed. certificate confirmed
upon the petitioner, has been cancelled by the Deputy
7680.14WP
Director of Education and Training Center, Pune. Similarly
some of the employees like the petitioner preferred the
Petition before the High Court. The High Court held that, an
alleged enquiry initiated by the concerned authority was
after completion of the said course by the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 610/2006 (Uddav S/o Bapurao Baswade V/s
The State of Maharashtra and others), the High Court
protected the petitioners therein.
8. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State
submits that, as and when the turn of the petitioner will
come as per the seniority, the Respondent - Education
Officer will take appropriate steps for redressal of the
grievance of the petitioner for inclusion of her name in the
list of the surplus teachers.
9. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respective Respondents. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto,
and the reply filed by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It
7680.14WP
appears that, the petitioner completed her postal D.Ed.
course in the year 2005. The petitioner has placed on record
the certificate issued by the Commissioner, Maharashtra
State Examination Council, Pune dated 6th June, 2005,
mentioning therein that, the petitioner has successfully
completed/passed D.Ed. qualification. It appears that, on
31st December, 2005, in pursuant to the show-cause notice
issued to the petitioner on 26th July, 2005 by the Deputy
Director, Maharashtra State Educational Research and
Training Center, Pune, after seeking response of the
petitioner, the admission in the year 2000-2001 of the
petitioner for D.Ed. course has been cancelled. The Division
bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 610/2006 (Uddhav
S/o Bapurao Baswade V/s The State of Maharashtra and
others) decided on 7th December, 2010, considered the
similar controversy and reached to the conclusion that,
before the orders were passed by the Deputy Director,
Maharashtra State Educational Research and Training
Center, Pune, cancelling the admission, most of the
candidates completed their D.Ed. course, and therefore, the
Petitions came to be allowed on the ground that, some of the
petitioners therein completed the said course even prior to
7680.14WP
initiating enquiry. In the present case also, though the
Petition is filed belatedly, the petitioner has assailed the
order dated 31st December, 2005 cancelling her admission
to the Postal D.Ed. course. Since in the case of similarly
situated employees, this Court has taken aforesaid view, the
petitioner's prayer to quash and set aside the impugned
communication/order dated 31st December, 2005 cancelling
the admission of the petitioner for the course of D.Ed.
deserves acceptance.
10. The contention of the petitioner that, the
petitioner's objection to the declaration of surplus teachers
list and non-inclusion of her name in the said list, has not
been considered by the Respondent No.4. In that respect, in
case the said objections are already not considered or the
petitioner's name is not included in the name of list of
surplus teachers, we direct the Respondent No.4 to take
decision keeping in view service record of the petitioner, vis-
a-vis other candidates and relevant rules about claim of the
petitioner for inclusion of her name in the list of surplus
teachers, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within
eight weeks from today and communicate the said decision
7680.14WP
to the petitioner.
11. It appears that, in pursuant to the cancellation
of admission of the petitioner for D.Ed. course, she was
removed from the employment of the Respondent Nos. 5 and
6. Thereafter, it appears that, she was reinstated in service
and the Education Officer granted approval to her services
on 21st April, 2012. Therefore, after such approval is
granted, whatever period for which the petitioner has
rendered services, the salary bills of the petitioner should be
submitted by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with Respondent
No.4 within three weeks from today and upon receiving such
salary bills, after following procedure, the Respondent No.4
shall verify the said bills, and if the salary bills are found in
order, disburse the salary for which the petitioner is
entitled, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within
four weeks from receiving such salary bills from the
Respondent No.6.
12. So far prayer of the petitioner for salary for the
services rendered prior to the date of approval, it is needless
to observe that, the petitioner is at liberty to take
7680.14WP
appropriate remedy, if available in law, against the
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for such payment of salary. It is
not possible for this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction
to entertain the Petition for salary for the earlier period
before three years preceding to filing of this Petition. Apart
from it, the learned A.G.P. during the course of arguments
has rightly submitted that, since the approval was granted
in April, 2012, at the most the petitioner would be entitled
to receive the salary from the Government from the date of
approval.
13. In the light of discussion in foregoing
paragraphs, the impugned communication/order dated 31 st
December, 2005 stands quashed and set aside. The
Respondent No.4 is directed to take decision on the
objections raised by the petitioner challenging the inclusion
of other employees in the list of surplus teachers and non-
inclusion of her name in the said list, as expeditiously as
possible, and preferably within eight weeks from today and
communicate the said decision to the petitioner, as already
observed.
7680.14WP
14. The Petition is partly allowed and same stands
disposed of.
15. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )
ig ...
SGA
