Prabhakar Baburao Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 6738 Bom

                                                                            19wp2490.odt
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO.2490 OF 2015




                                                                              
           Mr. Prabhakar s/o Baburao Pawar ...                    Petitioner 
           Age 40 years, Occu: Nil




                                                      
           R/o Takli, Tq. Chalisgaon, 
           Dist. Jalgaon

           VERSUS




                                                     
    1. The State of Maharashtra 
       through its Secretary, 
       School Education Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai




                                               
    2. The Director of Social Welfare,
                                  
       Maharashtra State, Pune.

    3. The Divisional Social Welfare 
                                 
       Officer, Nasik Division, Nasik.

    4. The District Social Welfare 
       Officer, Jalgaon.
      
   



    5. Janit Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, ...                        Respondents.
       Jalgaon, Through its President 
       at Primary Ashram School, Dand-
       Pimpri, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. 





       Jalgaon.

    Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner,
    Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for the  respondents 1 to 4
    Mr.   P.   B.   Patil,   h/for   Mr.   Ujwal   Patil,   advocate   for 





    respondent No.5

                                        CORAM   :  S. V. GANGAPURWALA & 
                                                    K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                         DATE   :   28th November,  2016


    JUDGMENT:                             

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

19wp2490.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final

disposal.

3. Mr. Barlinge, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as

Assistant Teacher in the year 1994 on grant-in-aid

basis. The petitioner's services were continued up to

the year 2004. In the year 2005, the school, where the

petitioner was working stood de-recognized. The learned

counsel submits that the similarly situated employees

had filed writ petition before this court. Writ

petition is allowed and those Assistant Teachers have

been absorbed. The learned counsel submits that the

petitioner is similarly situated. Only because the

petitioner had not filed any writ petition, the case

of the petitioner is not considered. According to the

learned counsel, the school, where the petitioner was

working is again recognized in the year 2010..

4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent

no.5 accepts that the petitioner was appointed in the

year 1999 and has worked up to 2003 on grant-in-aid

basis and in 2004 the school was de-recognized.

According to the learned counsel, in 2010, after the

19wp2490.odt school was again recognized, the school has absorbed

the surplus candidates as was directed by the

Divisional Social welfare Officer. The learned counsel

submits that at present there is no vacancy in the

respondent school.

5. The learned AGP states that name of the

petitioner is not included in the list of surplus

candidates as the appointment of the petitioner was on

temporary basis.

6. We have considered the submissions.

7. It is not disputed by either of the parties that

the appointment of the petitioner was on grant-in-aid

basis that the school where the petitioner was working

stood de-recognized. The petitioner would stand

retrenched under under Rule 25A of the MEPS Rules and

if the de-recognition of the school is not on account

of lapse on the part of the employee, the employee can

be declared as surplus and absorbed accordingly. As

other teachers of the said school have been absorbed,

it can be said that the de-recognition of the school

was not on account of lapse on the part of the

employees.

19wp2490.odt

8. Considering the above, respondent No.4 shall

place the petitioner in the list of surplus candidates

and shall absorb the petitioner as per his turn and the

petitioner will be paid salary from the date of his

absorption.

9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) JPC