Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shams Tabriz Mohammad Shaban vs State Of Mah & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5911 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5911 Bom
Judgement Date : 14 August, 2017

Bombay High Court
Shams Tabriz Mohammad Shaban vs State Of Mah & Ors on 14 August, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
                                           1                        W.P.No.8054/05

                                          UNREPORTED

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
                                  AT BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                               WRIT PETITION NO.8054 OF 2005



          Shams Tabriz Mohammad Shaban,
          Age 40 years, Occ.Service,
          presently working as Assistant
          Teacher, National Urdu High
          School, Dhule,R/o Dhule,
          Dist.Dhule.                   ... Petitioner.



                           Versus

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

          2. The Director (Postal D.Ed.
          Scheme), Maharashtra Educational
          Research and Training
          Institute, Pune.

          3. The Education Officer
          (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
          Dhule.

          4. Anjuman Faroge Talem,
          MaulawiGanj, Dhule, through
          its President.

          5. The Principal,
          National Urdu High School,
          Azad Nagar, Dhule,
          Dist.Dhule.                                 ... Respondents.


                                               ...




::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2017 00:28:36 :::
                                               2                        W.P.No.8054/05

          Mr.S.R.Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner.
          Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Additional Government
          Pleader for the State.
          Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and
          5.
                                   ...


                                     CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                             MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.

Date : 14.08.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. The petitioner assails the order dated

6.9.2005, passed by the Respondent No.2

cancelling the admission to the postal D.Ed.

2. Mr.Barlinge, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that though the petitioner was

appointed as a Peon, the petitioner was allowed

to take classes on honorary basis. Resolution to

that effect was also passed by the Management.

The learned counsel submits that thereafter

permission was granted to the petitioner for

taking postal D.Ed. course. The petitioner

passed his postal D.Ed. and got the D.Ed.

certificate. After 16 years of passing the D.Ed.

course, the Respondents cancelled the postal

D.Ed. admission. The petitioner since 5.1.1996

is functioning as an Assistant Teacher. Once

having given the admission in the postal D.Ed.

course, after 16 years it is not permissible to

cancel the same. The learned counsel relies on

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

"Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University,

Kurukshetra" reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court

376. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment

and order passed by this Court in group of

petitions dated 7.12.2010 in W.P.No.572/2006

(Shaikh Majid Ali S/o Liyakat Ali and others Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and others) (Coram

:B.R.Gavai and R.M.Borde,JJ).

3. Mr.Brahme, learned counsel for the

Respondents in fact supports the argument of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and submits

that Respondents had allowed the petitioner to

discharge the duties of a Teacher, however, the

said duty was additional one. On 6.10.1985,

Resolution was passed by the Management to permit

the petitioner to acquire qualification of D.Ed.

by post.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader

submits that fraud is committed by the petitioner

and the Management and such an admission can not

be protected. The petitioner was not entitled to

be admitted to the postal D.Ed. course. After

making necessary inquiry and getting the inquiry

report from the Education Officer (Primary), so

also Divisional Deputy Director of Education, the

show cause notice was issued to the petitioner

and admission was cancelled.

5. It appears that initially the

petitioner was appointed as Peon on 1.4.1981. On

or about 1985-86 as per the case of the

petitioner and the Management, the petitioner

was additionally allowed to take classes, he

being HSC qualified. The Management claims to

have passed a Resolution to that effect. The

petitioner was permitted by the authority to

appear for postal D.Ed. and in 1987-88 got the

qualification of postal D.Ed.

6. In the meantime, the petitioner was

promoted as Junior Clerk on or about 1.8.1994 and

thereafter is appointed as Assistant Teacher on

5.1.1996.

7. This Court had directed the parties to

maintain statusquo. The impugned order was not

implemented. The petitioner today also is

performing his duties as Assistant Teacher but

because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, is

not granted approval as Assistant Teacher.

8. The Management appears to have passed a

Resolution allowing the petitioner to complete

postal D.Ed. The petitioner has successfully

completed postal D.Ed. course. After having

completed postal D.Ed. course and after a long

slumber of 16 years had passed by, the

Respondents ventured to cancel the admission of

the petitioner of postal D.Ed. This Court in

W.P.No.572 of 2006 (Shaikh Majid Ali S/o Liyakat

Ali and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

others) (Coram : B.R.Gavai and R.M.Borde,JJ.)

under judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 has

considered the said aspect in similar set of

facts and had allowed the the Writ Petitions of

the petitioners therein.

9. Considering above and the petitioner is

similarly situated, the impugned order is quashed

and set aside.

10. The petitioner pursuant to the present

order may approach the authorities for redressal

of his grievance and consequential benefits, if

any.

11. Rule accordingly made absolute in above

terms. No costs.

                           Sd/-                       Sd/-

          (MANGESH S. PATIL,J.)            (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)




          asp/office/wp8054.05











 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter