Bombay High Court
Mandakini Murlidhar Karale vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Ors on 4 April, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.6023 OF 2010
Mandakini Murlidhar Karale,
Age 42 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Pratik Bungalow, Behind
Mahalaxmi Garden, Savedi Road,
Ahmednagar, Tq. and Dist.
Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal
Secretary, School Education
Department, Maharashtra State,
Manatralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary & Higher Secondary,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Division, Pune.
4. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar.
5. Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha
Vidya Prasarak Samaj,Laltaki
Road, Ahmednagar,through its
Secretary.
6. New Arts, Commerce and
Science Junior College,
Ahmednagar, through its
Principal. ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
2
...
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior advocate holding for
Mr.R.L.Kute, Mr.P.S.Dighe, advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6044 OF 2010
Usha Sadashiv Dalimbkar,
Aged 47 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Dwarka Complex, Agarkar
Mala, Shivneri Chowk,
Station Road, Ahmednagar,
Tq. and Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal
Secretary, School Education
Department, Maharashtra
State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Division,
Pune.
4. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar.
5. Ahmednagar Zilha Maratha
Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Laltaki
Road, Ahmednagar, through
its Secretary.
6. New Arts, Commerce and
Science Junior College,
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
3
Ahmednagar, thorugh its
Principal. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior advocate holding for
Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10475 OF 2010
Hema W/o Jayant Jadhav,
Age 45 years, Occ.Service,
R/o 'Rajas', Plot No.63,
Tambatkar Mala, Near
Mamta Gas, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal
Secretary, School Education
Department, Maharashtra
State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Division,
Pune.
4. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar.
5. Ahmednagar Zilha Maratha
Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Laltaki
Road, Ahmednagar, through
its Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:05:36 :::
4
6. New Arts, Commerce and
Science Junior College,
Ahmednagar, thorugh its
Principal. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.P.B.Shirsath, advocate holding for
Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL,JJ.
Date : 04.04.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. The petitioners herein seek permanent
approval as full time lecturers from the date of
their initial appointment till the year 2002-03
as according to the petitioners they have been
granted permanent approval from the year 2003-04
onwards.
2. Mr.Dhorde, learned Senior advocate and
Mr.Shirsath, learned advocate for respective
petitioners submit that initially in the year
1992 the petitioners were appointed as part time
lecturers in Junior College. The petitioners in
Writ Petition No.6023/2010 and Writ Petition
No.10475/2010 are appointed as full time
lecturers on 15.6.1998 and petitioner in Writ
Petition No.6044/2010 is appointed as full time
lecturer on 15.6.1997. According to the learned
Senior advocate the approval is not granted to
the appointment of the petitioners as full time
lecturers up to the year 2003 on the ground that
the appointment was not as per roster. The
learned Senior counsel submits that the
appointments of the petitioners as part time
lecturers are approved by the authority. As the
approval was not granted, the petitioners were
illegally terminated. They had filed appeal
before the School Tribunal. The appeal came to be
allowed, directing reinstatement and the
petitioners came to be reinstated on 16.4.2003.
There was no impediment to grant approval to the
petitioners for the said interregnum period and
also pay salary. According learned Senior
advocate the appointments of the petitioners were
after following proper procedure of law and the
same has been upheld by the School Tribunal in
its judgment. Even the approval is granted to
the appointment of the petitioners from 2003
onwards and till date the same is in force and
the petitioners are officiating their duties.
3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. submits
that the appointment of the petitioners were
against the reserved seats, as such approval
could not have been granted. As and when the
posts became available for the open category
candidates from the year 2003 onwards, the
approval is granted to them. According to
learned A.G.P. the break in service can not be
condoned for more than two years. The same has
to be referred to the Government. In this case,
the break in service is more than four years. The
continuity also can not be granted nor the salary
can be paid as their appointments are as against
the reserved category posts.
4. Mr.Hon, learned Senior advocate for the
Respondent-institution submits that the
petitioner in W.P.No.6023/2010, as per the roster
is appointed from open category and the said post
is meant for open category, whereas petitioners
in other two Writ Petitions are open category
candidates and they were appointed on the posts
meant for other Backward Class candidates.
5. We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for respective
parties. It is not disputed that the authority
has granted approval to the appointment of the
petitioners from 2003 onwards and also approval
is granted to the petitioners as part time
lecturers. The only dispute is for the
interregnum period from 1999-2000 to 2003. As is
seen from the roster filed along with the
rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner and
accepted by the institution, the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.6023/2010 is appointed as
against the post meant for open category
candidate and the other two petitioners are
appointed on the post meant for reserved category
candidates and from 2003 onwards their
appointments have been approved.
6. It is also not disputed that for one
year i.e. 1998-99 the appointment of all these
petitioners as full time lecturers are approved.
When the appointment of the petitioners as full
time lecturers from 1998-99 and 2003 onwards is
approved by the authority, there is no reason not
to grant approval for the period 1999-2000 to
2003.
7. Now it is not disputed that the
appointment of the petitioners are as per the
roster as their appointments are approved from
2003 onwards and the backlog of the reserved
category candidate has been filled in. In view
of the above, there would be no impediment to
grant the petitioners continuity in service and
to approve the appointment of the petitioners for
the interregnum period for which the approval to
their appointment is rejected. However, the
persons who were shown to have been appointed as
against reserved posts would not be entitled for
the salary from the State.
8. Considering the aforesaid conspectus of
the matter, we pass the following order :
a) The Respondent authority shall accord
approval to the appointment of the petitioners
from the year 1998-99 to 2003 and the services
during the said period shall be counted for the
purpose of continuity.
b) The petitioners in Writ Petition
No.6044/2010 and Writ Petition No.10475/2010
shall not be entitled for the salary for the said
period i.e. 1998-99 to 2003 though approval is
directed to be granted to them for the said
period. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No.6023/2010, shall be entitled for the salary
for the said period. The salary bills shall be
submitted by the Management to the concerned
authority. The same shall be processed and
sanctioned accordingly.
c) Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp6023.10
