Bombay High Court
Gopal Jairam Lanjewar vs The ... on 14 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp 1356.02. judg.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.1356 of 2002
Gopal Jairam Lanjewar,
R/o.-Dongargaon, Tah. Mohadi, District Bhandara. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
2] Prashant Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Aandhalgaon,
Tah. Mohadi, District Bhandara, through its Secretary.
3] Headmaster, Anand Purva Madhyamik Shala, Aandhalgaon,
Tah. Mohadi, District Bhandara.
4] The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, Amendment carried
Taluka Beed, District Beed. .... Respondents. out as per Court's order
dated 14.03.2016
Shri Rohit Vaidya, Adv. h/f Shri Anand Parchure, Adv for petitioner.
Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Adv for resp. no.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 14th
December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard learned Advocate Shri Vaidya holding for Shri Anand
Parchure, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate
Mrs. Munshi for respondent no.1. Nobody appears for respondent nos. 2, 3
and 4.
2] The petitioner claims a direction to the respondents to treat him as
2 wp 1356.02. judg.
in continuous service from 01-07-1997 and to compute his service accordingly
without any break.
3] The challenge has become necessary because of order dated
25-02-2003 issued by respondent no.1 granting approval to the petitioner's
services as 'Shikshan Sevak' from 25-02-2003.
4] After hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner, we find that the
petitioner entered in the employment of respondent nos. 2 and 3 after his
selection and appointment as per order dated 25-06-1997. In seniority list at
Annexure-2 his name appears. Name of one Shri U.J. Ramteke (Umeshkumar
Jagadish) appears just above his name while name of Shri L.B. Karemore
appears just after his name. Shri Ramteke is shown to have joined on
01-07-1999 while the petitioner is shown to have joined on 01-08-1997.
Shri L.B. Karemore has joined on 01-07-1998. Thus, Shri Ramteke and
Shri Karemore are both juniors to the petitioner.
5] The Secretary of respondent no.2 society has issued an
experience certificate on 08-10-2000 to the petitioner and in it it is certified that
the petitioner worked as Assistant Teacher with respondent no.2 School in
1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 academic sessions.
6] By order dated 24-02-2003, the petitioner came to be transferred by
respondent no.2 to its school at village Jam, Taluka Mohadi, District Bhandara.
The petitioner, accordingly, reported at transferred place. The Education Officer
(respondent no.1) then granted approval to his said employment as 'Shikshan
Sevak' from 25-02-2003 to 30-04-2003. This approval from 25-02-2003 up to
30-04-2003 is because of orders passed in this Writ Petition No.1356 of 2002
and in Contempt Petition No.175 of 2002. Perusal of orders of this Court in this
3 wp 1356.02. judg.
writ petition show that on 23-07-2002 the employer made a statement that the
services of the present petitioner were not terminated and he was free to report
and sign the muster roll. The Court accepted the said statement. It appears that
respondent nos. 2 and 3 were entrusted that responsibility to move respondent
no.1-Education Office for grant of approval and the Education Officer was to
take decision on the request for approval within four weeks.
7] The Management, accordingly, submitted the proposal and the
Education Officer granted approval to it on 25-02-2003, as mentioned supra.
8] It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to serve thereafter
with respondent nos. 2 and 3 till he received the another appointment order
issued by respondent no.4-Zilla Parishad. The said order is dated 20-03-2003.
The petitioner, accordingly, joined at that place. The petitioner, thereafter,
sought Inter District Transfer and has come back to Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara has on 16-08-2008 posted him as Assistant Teacher
and allotted him school at Warthi, Panchayat Samiti Mohadi. This order
specifically stipulates that his seniority would be counted from the date of
joining at that place and his service with Zilla Parishad, Beed would not be
taken into account while determining his seniority.
9] During arguments, the petitioner has expressly given up his prayer
for releasing financial benefits from 01-07-1999 and onwards.
10] The respondents though served have not filed on record any reply
explaining why the service put in by the petitioner from 01-07-1997 and onwards
cannot be approved. The material on record shows that after directions by this
Court and because of contempt petition, the approval was given by respondent
no.1 for period from 25-02-2003 to 30-04-2003 as 'Shikshan Sevak'. The
4 wp 1356.02. judg.
petitioner claims that he is entitled to approval for the post of Assistant Teacher
retrospectively. The respondents have not pointed out that on 01-07-1997 the
petitioner could not have been given approval as Assistant Teacher or then at
that juncture he could have been approved only as 'Shikshan Sevak'.
11] The office of respondent no.1 has given approval to the
employment of Shri L.B. Karemore and Shri U.J. Ramteke by order dated
31-03-2000 for period from 01-07-1998 up to 30-04-1999 and thereafter from
01-07-1999 till 30-04-2000 respectively. Their appointment is as Assistant
Teacher and not as 'Shikshan Sevak'. Thus, two persons junior to petitioner
have been given approval from the date of joining as Assistant Teacher. This
shows that the proposal of petitioner was not forwarded by respondent nos. 2
and 3 and hence he could not be approved. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not
pointed out that such proposal was received and it was rejected.
12] In this situation, we find the petitioner entitled to grant of approval
as Assistant Teacher from 01-07-1997. The initial approval shall be on probation
and thereafter from 01-07-1999 it shall be on permanent basis.
13] With this direction, we partly allow writ petition and dispose of it. No
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
