Bombay High Court
Ku. Manisha D/O Pandurang Kadhe vs Education Officer (Secondary), ... on 4 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp110.16.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2016
Ku. Manisha d/o Pandurang Kadhe,
aged about 33 yrs., Occp. Service,
r/o c/o Vijay Meshram, Plot No.14,
Sevadal Nagar, Manewada,
Besa road, Nagpur. :: :: PETITIONER
.. Versus
..
1. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
2. National Education Society, Nagpur
through its Secretary, Shri Vijay Bhoyar,
aged about 70 yrs., r/o 184, Adiwasi Nagar,
Manewada road, Nagpur-17.
3. Head Master,
Prabuddha Vidyalaya, Vakilpeth,
Nagpur - 09. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent
of learned Counsel for the parties.
wp110.16.odt 2/3
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the similarly
circumstanced employees have been given benefit of Rule 26(2) (iii)
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Service Conditions)
Rules, 1981 by the Education Officer vide order dated 18/02/2016. It
is further contended that it has also been directed by the said order
that the salary bills of the employees should be submitted from the
School in which they are working till their absorption in another
School.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been given
a discriminatory treatment.
4. Learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1-Education Officer on
instructions states that the petitioner has not been given similar
treatment as has been given to the other teachers since respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 have terminated the services of the petitioner. It is
submitted that since the petitioner is already terminated, she is not
entitled to get benefit of Rule 26 (2)(iii) of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1981.
5. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 that they had no other option but to terminate the
services of the petitioner since she was found to be excess than the
sanctioned strength.
6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we
wp110.16.odt 3/3
direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith withdraw the termination
issued in favour of the petitioner.
7. After the termination is withdrawn and the petitioner is
reinstated, respondent No.1 would pass appropriate orders as has been
passed in the similarly circumstanced case
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
ig JUDGE JUDGE
wwl
