Kelapur Education Society, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1849 Bom

                                       1                  wp6162.16.odt         



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



                      WRIT PETITION NO.6162 of 2016



1. Kelapur Education Society,
   through its Secretary Narsinghrao
   Ragholu Saturwar, Aged 66 years,
   r/o. Pandharkawada, Tq.Pandharkawada.
   Distt. Yavatmal.

2. Naresh s/o. Madhukar Chatki,
   Aged 32 years, Occ. Jr. Clerk,
   K.E.S. Girls School, Pandharkawada,
   Tq.Pandharkawada, Distt.Yavatmal.

3. Sushil s/o. Tulshiram Lokhande,
   Aged 29 years, Occ. Jr. Clerk,
   K.E.S. Boys School, Pandharkawada,
   Tq.Pandharkawada, Distt.Yavatmal.          ..             PETITIONERS


                               .. Versus ..


1. State of Maharashtra,
   through Secretary to Secondary
   Education Department, Mantralaya
   Mumbai-32.

2. Director of Education,
   Maharashtra State, Pune.

3. Deputy Director of Education,
   Amravati Region, Amravati.

4. Education Officer (Secondary),
   Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.                  ..            RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:49:46 :::
                                      2                      wp6162.16.odt         


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
           Mr.R.L.Khapre, Advocate for the Petitioners.
              Ms R.V.Kalia, A.G.P. for Respondents.
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



                                    CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &
                                            A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : April 19, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J. )

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court being

aggrieved by the Order passed by the Education Officer, Yavatmal

dt.7.6.2016 thereby rejecting the proposal submitted by the

petitioners for grant of approval to the appointments of the Junior

Clerks.

3. Petitioner no.1/Society, on the vacancy of Junior Clerks

having occurred, had applied to respondent no.4/Education Officer

for grant of permission to fill in the posts of Junior Clerks.

Accordingly, said permission was granted on 31.7.2014. In

pursuance to the said permission, advertisement was issued and

after due selection process, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 came to be

appointed. After their appointments, the proposal was sent to the

3 wp6162.16.odt

Education Officer for grant of approval. Needless to state that, prior

to their appointments, necessary approval of Assistant

Commissioner (Backward Class Cell), Amravati region, Amravati for

determining roster point was already obtained. However, since the

proposal for grant of approval was not considered, the petitioners

approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2385 of 2015.

This Court vide order dt.12.4.2016 disposed of Writ Petition

No.2385 of 2015 and directed the Education Officer to decide the

proposal submitted by petitioner no.1 within the stipulated period

after grant of hearing to the concerned parties.

4. By the impugned order, the Education Officer rejected

the said proposal on the ground that the appointments were in

violation of the Government Resolution dt.20.6.2014 inasmuch as

prior approval of Special Committee was not obtained. It has been

observed by the Education Officer that, in view of the said

Government Resolution, first the surplus staff available in the

District has to be absorbed and thereafter, only appointments can

be made.

5. Similar situation came up for consideration before the

Division Bench of this Court (comprising of B.P.Dharmadhikari, J

and Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J) in a bunch of Writ Petitions bearing Writ

Petition No.4888 of 2016 and companion petitions which were

decided on 14.2.2017. It has been held by this Court that the

4 wp6162.16.odt

petitioner/Society cannot be blamed inasmuch as the posts were

filled in after due permission was granted by the Education Officer.

It has further been held that it is not as if the petitioners were not

brought to notice the Government Resolution dt.20.6.2014. It has

further been observed that the appointments were made after

following due selection process. As such, the petitions were

allowed.

6. We find that, prior to appointing petitioners 2 and 3, the

Management has followed everything that was required in law.

Prior permission of Education Officer was obtained. Not only that,

roster point was also verified from the Competent Authority i.e.

Assistant Commissioner (Backward Class Cell), Amravati region,

Amravati. It is not the case of any of the parties that petitioner nos.

2 and 3 do not possess requisite qualification. In that view of the

matter, we direct the respondent/Education Officer to grant

approval to the appointments of petitioners from the date of their

selection. Needless to state that all consequential benefits

regarding payment of salary shall follow.

With the above observations and directions, the Writ

Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

                               JUDGE                                JUDGE
JAISWAL