Bombay High Court
Satish Keshavrao Gawande vs State Of Maha, Edn. Dept. Thru. ... on 30 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp908.07.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.908 of 2007
Satish s/o. Keshavrao Gawande,
Aged about 36 years, r/o.
Quarter No.40, Vidnyan Nagar,
Manewada, Nagpur. ig .. PETITIONER
.. Versus ..
1. State of Maharashtra,
Education Department,
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Deputy Director of
Vocational Education and
Training, Regional Office,
Nagpur.
3. Abhinandan Junior College,
Bapu Nagar, Umred Road,
Nagpur, through its Principal.
4. Vandana Shikshan Sanstha,
6, Om Nagar, Nagpur through
its President. .. RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms S.Z.Haider, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2016 00:21:26 :::
2 wp908.07.odt
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 30.11.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties.
2. The
petitioner has approached this Court being
aggrieved by order dt.24.12.2004 passed by respondent no.2
rejecting the proposal submitted by respondent nos. 3 and 4 for
regularisation of services of the petitioner from 19.10.1994.
3. The petitioner who possesses requisite qualification was
appointed as a teacher in M.C.V.C. Course run by respondent nos.
1 and 4. Initially, appointment of the petitioner was on 13.01.1993
against a post reserved for the Other Backward Category. Approval
was also granted to the appointment of the petitioner vide Order
dt.15.3.1995 for a period of one year.
4. It appears that, again, in the next year, respondent nos.
3 and 4 issued an advertisement and the petitioner applied for the
post meant for the open category candidate. In the said selection
process, the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 19.10.1994. It further
3 wp908.07.odt
appears that, in the meantime, the petitioner's services were
terminated. He, therefore, approached the learned Tribunal.
However, during pendency of the appeal, the matter was amicably
settled between the petitioner and the management and as such,
the termination order was withdrawn and the petitioner
consequently withdrew his appeal. Since the petitioner was seeking
regularisation from 19.10.1994 and since approval was granted
w.e.f. 1.4.1997, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ
Petition No.710 of 2004. The petitioner had relied on the
Government Circular dt.21.4.1995. The petition was allowed vide
Judgment and Order dt.20.9.2004 directing the Management to
submit proposal afresh. Respondent No.2 was directed to consider
the proposal in accordance with the Government Resolution
dt.21.4.1995. However, vide the impugned order dt.24.12.2004,
the same is again rejected. Hence, the present petition.
5. This petition was listed before this Court on 24.11.2008.
However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench found that the
petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches. The petitioner carried the said order in an appeal before
the Apex Court. Their Lordships of the Apex Court vide Judgment
and Order dt.30.4.2013 specifically observed that there was no
delay nor were there any laches on the part of the petitioner and as
such, the said order was quashed and aside and the matter was
remanded back for fresh consideration. As such, the matter is
4 wp908.07.odt
before us.
6. Heard Mr.Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Ms S.Z.Haider, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and
2 and Dr.B.G.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
7. Perusal of the material placed on record would reveal
that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed for
the second time on 19.10.1994.
ig Insofar as appointment of the
petitioner in the year 1993 is concerned, the same was approved
only for the period of one year and as such, the petitioner is also
not seeking regularisation from the said date. Though it is
undisputed that the petitioner has been appointed from
19.10.1994, respondent no.2 is denying regularisation from the
said date on the ground that, on the relevant date, there was
backlog of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Category.
8. It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioner was
against the seat meant for open category candidate and not
against the seat reserved for any other category. Dr.B.G.Kulkarni,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4
makes a categorical statement that the roster which is approved by
the Competent Authority also shows petitioner's appointment
against open category. If that be so, there is absolutely no
5 wp908.07.odt
justification on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in not granting
approval to the petitioner from 19.10.1994 on the ground that
there is a backlog of reserved category on the said date. Had the
petitioner not been appointed against the reserved post, the
situation would have been different.
9. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Rule is
made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) of the petition.
No order as to costs.
The arrears that the petitioner would be entitled to on
the basis of the aforesaid order shall be paid to him within a period
of six months from today.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
