Bombay High Court
Rajkumar Achutrao Bangar vs The Secretary Virshaivya Mandal ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1708 OF 2016
Rajkumar S/o Achutrao Bangar,
Age-28 years, Occu-Service (Presently NIL)
r/o Bangarwadi, Taluka Kallam,
District Osmanabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Shri Virshaivya Mandal Sansthan,
Yermala, Taluka Kallam,
District Osmanabad,
2. The Head Master,
Shri Saraswati Secondary Vidyalaya,
Yermala, Taluka Kallam,
District Osmanabad,
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad RESPONDENTS
Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.R.Shirsat, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.D.R.Korde, AGP for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 29/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated
khs/March 2016/1708-d
18/11/2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Solapur, by which
Appeal No.9/2015 filed by the petitioner for challenging his
termination dated 12/01/2015, has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner submits that he was appointed as a "Shikshan
Sevak" w.e.f. 15/06/2012. It is stated that his appointment was for
the period 15/06/2012 till 14/06/2015. The appointment order
further indicates that if the petitioner completes 3 years of
satisfactory service, he would be held eligible for the pay scale as is
provided for by the rules applicable. He was being paid Rs.6,000/-
p.m. as a consolidated pay.
4. The petitioner submits that since he was terminated on
12/01/2015 solely on the ground that the Education Officer had
declined to consider an individual proposal for approval, he preferred
Appeal No.9/2015 before the School Tribunal. By the impugned
judgment, the School Tribunal concluded that the appointment of the
petitioner is illegal and he was not accorded approval. Contention of
the petitioner is that the Management has terminated his services
only because he was not granted approval.
5. Mr.Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the
khs/March 2016/1708-d
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of St.Ulai High
School and another Vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and
another, 2007(1) Mh.L.J.597 to support his contention that lack of
approval is not an impediment to continue the petitioner in
employment. He, therefore, submits that the termination, which is
based purely on account of lack of approval, needs to be interfered
with.
6. Mr.Shirsat, learned Advocate for the respondent/Management
submits on instructions that the Management had no grievance
against the petitioner. He was terminated only because an approval
was not granted. If the petitioner is willing to waive his entire back
wages from the date of termination till his reinstatement, the
Management would reinstate him and forward his proposal to the
Education Officer. Mr.Jadhavar submits on instructions from the
petitioner present in the Court that he is willing to waive the back
wages and his continuity in service be protected.
7. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Education Officer
submits that the appointment of the petitioner is not legal. He relies
upon the affidavit in reply dated 10/03/2016 filed by Mr.Audumbar
Sampatrao Ukirde, Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P. Osmanabad.
khs/March 2016/1708-d
He points out from paragraph No.5 that if any proposal is forwarded
by the Management for seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner, same would be considered as per the provisions of the
M.E.P.S Act and the M.E.P.S.Rules.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
9.
It is now settled by the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in the matter of St.Ulai (supra) that merely because an
employee has not received an approval by the competent authority, it
would not be a ground for dispensing with his services. He could be
continued subject to the Management paying his salary as the salary
grants would not be available for such an employee whose services
are not approved.
10. Considering the statement of the Management that they are
willing to reinstate the petitioner in service, this petition is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated
18/11/2015 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is, therefore,
reinstated in service and the Management shall forward his proposal
to the Education Officer for approval. Needless to state, considering
the statements of the Management and the petitioner, the petitioner
khs/March 2016/1708-d
will not be entitled for back wages. There shall, however, be deemed
continuity in service.
11. If the Management forwards the proposal of the petitioner to
the Education Officer (Secondary), the said authority shall consider
the proposal purely on its merits and strictly in accordance with the
M.E.P.S. Act and the M.E.P.S.Rules.
12. It is made clear that since this order is passed considering the
statements made by the Management and the petitioner, the
Education Officer shall not be influenced by any observations made
in this order and shall decide the proposal as stated above on its own
merits. In the event, the petitioner or the Management is aggrieved
by the decision of the Education Officer, they may seek redressal of
their grievance by resorting to a legal remedy, if available.
13. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/March 2016/1708-d
