Bombay High Court
Dinkar Sitaram Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra Dept. Of ... on 7 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.
WRIT PETITION No. 144 OF 2016
Dinkar Sitaram Jadhav
aged 42 years, Occ.: Nil
r/o Sawana, Tq. Chikhali
District Buldhana. .... PETITIONER.
-VERSUS -
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Deptt. Of School Education
through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
4. Dattatraya Education Society,
through its President.
5. Sant Gulabbaba Vidyalaya
through its Head Master
Respondent no. 4 & 5
r/o Divthana, Post Peth,
Tq. Chikhali, District Buldhana. .... RESPONDENTS.
....
Mr. A.J./P.J. Kadu Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Patil, A.G.P., for respondents 1 to 3.
Respondents 4 and 5 served.
....
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:11 :::
2
CORAM : Smt. V.A. Naik & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
DATED : 07th March, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. V.A. Naik, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent no.3- Education Officer to absorb the petitioner in any of the
grant-in-aid schools in the interest of justice.
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher
(Craft) to teach students of standard V to VII in the year 1996. The
services of the petitioner were terminated on 20.6.2005. Though the
appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination was
dismissed by the School Tribunal, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
was allowed and the respondents no. 4 and 5 were directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service. The judgment in W.P. No. 5208/07 dated
27.4.2015 was implemented by the respondents no. 4 and 5 and the
petitioner was reinstated on 20.5.2015. The respondent-authorities,
however, asked the respondents no. 4 and 5 to terminate the services of
the petitioner in view of the closure of Standard V to VII due to the
reduction in the number of students. In view of the directions of the
Education authorities the petitioner's services became surplus in the
school run by the respondents no. 4 and 5 and hence the petitioner has
sought his absorption in some other school.
4. Shri Kadu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of Rule
26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981. It is stated that the petitioner was reinstated in
service after the writ petition filed by him was allowed on 27.4.2015. It is
stated that the petitioner was an approved teacher working in the school
run by respondents 4 and 5 for standard V to Vii. It is stated that merely
because the strength of the pupils in standard V to VII in the school of the
respondent no. 4 and 5 is reduced, the petitioner cannot be expected to
remain out of employment. It is stated that it would be necessary for the
respondents no. 4 and 5 to absorb the petitioner by taking recourse to
the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules, more so when the respondent no. 3
has absorbed all the other teachers that were teaching Standard V to VII
in the school run by the respondents no. 4 and 5. It is stated that the
action on the part of the respondent no. 3 in not absorbing the petitioner is
illegal.
5. Shri Patil, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appearing on
behalf of respondent-authorities does not dispute that the writ petition filed
by the petitioner was allowed on 27.4.2015 and after the petitioner joined
the service with the respondents no. 4 and 5, he was terminated in
pursuance of the directions issued by the education authorities, as
standard V to VII were not functioning in the school run by the
respondents no. 4 and 5. It is stated that the other teachers were
absorbed as the process in respect of their absorption was pending with
the Education Officer and the question of absorbing the petitioner did not
arise at that time. It is stated that appropriate orders may be passed in the
circumstances of the case.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that
a direction is liable to be issued against the respondent no. 3- Education
Officer to absorb the petitioner in some other school in Zilla Parishad,
Buldhana. The petitioner was working in the school since the year 1996
and his services were approved. Though the management had terminated
the services of the petitioner in the year 2005, in view of the judgment of
this Court in W.P. No.5208/07, the respondents no. 4 and 5 had reinstated
the petitioner in service. The petitioner was relieved by the respondent no.
5 only in view of the directions of the education authorities to relieve the
petitioner due to closure of V to VII standard classes as a result of the
reduction in the number of students. After the petitioner was relieved on
23.9.2015 it was necessary for the Education Officer to have absorbed the
petitioner in some other school in the circumstances of the case. It is
pertinent to note that the Education Officer had absorbed all the other
teachers that were working in Standard V to VII after the closure of the
said classes and only the petitioner was singled out, as he was relieved
only on 23.9.2015.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent no. 3, Education Officer, is directed to absorb the
petitioner in some other school at the earliest.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
/TA/
