Bombay High Court
Devidas Govindrao Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 October, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
WP 6017/15 & another
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6017/2015
Devidas S/o Govindrao Chavan
Age 47 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Parli, Tq.Parli,
District Beed.
..Petitioner..
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through,Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.
2] The Director,
V.J.N.T.,O.B.C. & S.B.C.
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3] The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4] The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Beed, Tq.and Dist.Beed.
5] Madhyamik Ashram School,
Shivajinagar, Tq.Parli,Dist.Beed.
Through its Headmaster.
...Respondents..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.7884/2015
Gangutai Narayan Mahajan,
Age 59 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o C/o Bhaskar Mama Chate Niwas,
Near Bhagwanbaba Mandir, Shivaji Nagar,
Thermal Road,Parli, Tq.Parli,
District Beed.
..Petitioner..
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 01:01:45 :::
WP 6017/15 & another
- 2 -
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through,Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.
2] The Accountant General (A & E)-II,
Maharashtra State,Nagpur
In front of Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur.
3] The Director,
V.J.N.T.,O.B.C. & S.B.C.
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4] The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
5] The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Beed, Tq.and Dist.Beed.
6] Madhyamik Ashram School,
Shivajinagar, Tq.Parli,Dist.Beed.
Through its Headmaster.
...Respondents..
.....
Shri A.D.Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri B.A.Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 4.
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 19.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of
WP 6017/15 & another
- 3 -
learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are
taken up for final disposal at this stage.
2] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners possess the qualification of B.A.,
B.P.Ed. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant
Teacher on 13.6.1994 in WP 7884/2015 and on 1.6.1996 in
WP 6017/2015. The petitioners in both these writ
petitions had completed their D.Ed. on 31.12.2002. From
31.12.2002, the petitioners are paid the pay-scale of a
trained Primary Teacher. However, from the date of their
appointment till acquiring the qualification of D.Ed.,
the petitioners are paid salary as that of an untrained
teacher. The learned counsel submits that vide the
Government resolution dated 11.11.2011, the policy
decision is taken by the State that if the teacher in the
primary school possesses the qualification of graduate,
then in that case, the said teacher since the date of his
appointment has to be paid in the pay-scale of a trained
Primary Teacher. The learned counsel also relies on the
Government resolution dated 1.6.2000 stating that those
teachers who have completed their B.P.Ed. with one school
subject, then those teachers are not required to undergo
WP 6017/15 & another
- 4 -
further degree course of B.Ed. Then the same is
considered equivalent. The learned counsel submits that
the proposal seeking approval for the pay-scale of a
trained Primary Teacher since the date of their
appointment till acquiring D.Ed. qualification has been
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners do not
possess the B.Ed. qualification. The same is illegal.
The mark memos placed on record specifically show that
the petitioners had Marathi as a school subject.
3] The learned AGP states that the petitioners are
not possessing B.Ed. qualification. As such, the
Government resolution dated 11.11.2011 does not come to
the aid of the petitioners. No error has been committed
by the Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare while
rejecting the proposal of the petitioners seeking pay-
scale of a trained Primary Teacher.
4] We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned counsel for the parties.
5] It is not disputed that the petitioners possess
the qualification of B.A., B.P.Ed. at the time of their
initial appointment and subsequently they have acquired
D.Ed. qualification in the year 2002. There is no
WP 6017/15 & another
- 5 -
dispute with regard to the pay-scale being paid to the
petitioners after having acquired D.Ed. qualification.
The only dispute is for a period since the date of
appointment till the petitioners acquired D.Ed.
qualification. For the said period, the petitioners are
paid in the scale of untrained teacher. The Government
resolution dated 11.11.2011 explicitly lays down that
even those teachers who do not possess D.Ed.
qualification but are possessing graduate degree can be
considered as trained Primary Teachers. The Government
resolution dated 1.6.2000 also states that those persons
who have completed B.P.Ed. course alongwith one another
school subject are to be considered eligible and are
given exemption from passing B.Ed. course. The affidavit
in reply filed by the respondent no.4 is also on the
premise that the petitioners do not have teaching subject
at the level of B.P.Ed. and as such are not entitled to
get the benefit of Government resolution dated 1.6.2000.
The mark memos produced on record prima facie show that
the petitioners had Marathi as one of the school
subjects. The said factum was not probably placed before
the respondent authority nor the proposal contained such
WP 6017/15 & another
- 6 -
a explanation.
6] Considering the above, the impugned orders are
quashed and set aside. The respondent authority shall
decide the proposal of the petitioners seeking trained
primary teachers pay-scale from the date of their
appointment till acquiring D.Ed. qualification on its own
merits in accordance with law expeditiously and
preferably within six months. The petitioners may place
on record before the respondent authority the documents
on which they seek to place reliance. Rule is
accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
ndk/c19101618.doc
