Bombay High Court
Vijay Namdeorao Chopde vs Divisional Social Welfare ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 291.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.291 of 2004
Vijay Namdeorao Chopde,
Age 29 years, R/o.-Sahyog Nagar,
New Mhada Colony, Tahsil and District Wardha. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Nagpur Division, Sadar, Nagpur.
2] Additional Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
3] Social Welfare Officer, Zill Parishad, Wardha.
4] Shri Jagadamba Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Wardha through its director Shri Ramesh Gulabrao Pawar,
R/o.-C/o Dr. Satish Harne, Nagpur road, Wardha.
5] Shri Jagdamba Deaf and Dumb School, (Deleted as per Court's
Near Gandhi Petrol Pump, Nagpur road, Order dated 15-09-2014)
Wardha through its Head of School.
6] President Shri Jagdamba (Amendment carried out as per Court's
Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, order dated 05-11-2014 and deleted as per
Wardha Shri Janardan Dattatraya Dorlikar, Registrar (Judicial's) order
aged about 63 years, R/o.-Sindi Naka, Dated 18-02-2015).
Ram Nagar, Wardha.
Corrected Address
President Shri Jagdamba Bahuuddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha,
Shri Janardhan Dattatrya Dorlikar,
aged about 73 years, R/o.-Ajangaon,
Post Panwadi, Tq. Arvi, Dist. Wardha. .... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:49:00 :::
2 Judg. wp 291.04.odt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.D. Chopde, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri P.D. Meghe, Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Shri Rohit Vaidya, Counsel holding for
Shri Anand Parchure, Counsel for respondent no.4.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 04 th July, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
Heard Shri Chopde, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Shri Meghe, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.
2 and 3, Shri Vaidya, the learned Counsel holding for Shri Anand
Parchure, Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and Shri Ukey, the
learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
2] The petitioner was appointed as a Special Teacher on 23-11-2001
after issuing an advertisement, inviting applications and selecting the
candidates in the school run by the respondent no.4-Shri Jagadamba
Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha. The appointment of the
petitioner was also approved on 21-05-2002 by the respondent nos. 2 and
3, the Competent Authorities. On 31-03-2003, the petitioner was
terminated from service. In appeal, respondent no.1-the Divisional Social
Welfare Officer set aside the order of termination. In Writ Petition No.
2565 of 2003 preferred by the Management, the order passed by
respondent no.1 was set aside on 11-07-2001 with an order of remand but
3 Judg. wp 291.04.odt
the petitioner was directed to be continued in service. Upon remand of the
matter, the respondent no.1-Divisional Social Welfare Officer passed an
order on 9/15-12-2003 holding that the appointments are required to be
made by the duly constituted School Committee. The School Committee
constituted thereafter decided to continue the petitioner on 19-03-2004.
Accordingly, the petitioner was continued in service.
3] On 07-08-2010, the School run by the respondent no.4 was closed
down and the Management was transferred on 15-03-2011 to another
Society-Mahila Vikas Sanstha, Wardha, which is not the party in this
petition. The said Society invited the petitioner to join the post within 24
hours by issuing communication dated 16-03-2011. The petitioner has,
accordingly, joined the post of Special Teacher and he is continuously
working in the said School and the respondent nos.1 and 2 have also
granted approval to continue the petitioner in service.
4] This Court had also passed an order on 26-02-2004, pending the
decision of this Writ Petition continuing the petitioner in service.
5] In view of above, the grievance of the petitioner in this petition
does not survive. The question of discontinuing the petitioner from service
on the basis of the aforesaid factual position and the order impugned in this
petition also does not arise. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as
infructuous.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
