Bombay High Court
Shrikant Devrao Kumre vs The Commissioner Of Tribal ... on 7 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0707WP2437.17-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2437 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Shrikant Devrao Kumre, Age - 34 years,
Occ.: Asstt.Teacher, R/o. C/o. Sanmitra
Sainiki Vidyalaya, Chandrapur, Dist.
Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The Commissioner of Tribal Department,
Nashik.
2) The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal
Development Project, Chimur.
3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Chandrapur.
4) Sanmitra Mandal, In Front of Plywood
Factory, Bhivkund Nala, Bhallarpur Road,
Chandrapur. Through its President.
5) Sanmitra Sainiki Vidyalaya, Chandrapur,
Tah. Dist. Chandrapur. Through its Head
Master.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 07.07.2017
0707WP2437.17-Judgment 2/5
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
against the respondent No.1-Commissioner of Tribal Development to
absorb the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher in any school
administered by the tribal department or the school education
department as the petitioner is declared surplus in the respondent No.5-
military school that was run by the respondent No.4-mandal.
3. The respondent No.4, which runs a military school, invited
applications by an advertisement dated 26/06/2010 for appointment of
shikshan sevaks for the 5th standard that was started for the education
of tribal students. The petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the
advertisement and approval was granted to the appointment of the
petitioner from 21/02/2011 to 20/02/2014. The petitioner worked as
a shikshan sevak for three years and thereafter worked as an assistant
teacher and his services as an assistant teacher were approved. By an
order dated 21/04/2014, the Education Officer (Secondary) granted
approval to the services of the petitioner from 21/02/2014 as an
assistant teacher till further orders. It is stated that the military school
0707WP2437.17-Judgment 3/5
run by the respondent No.4-mandal was not permitted to continue the
additional section for the tribal students as was permitted by the project
officer in the year 2010, with the result, the petitioner was declared as
surplus. Since the petitioner was declared surplus, the petitioner has
sought his absorption in a military school or in any school run by the
tribal department or the school education department.
4. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that though the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 does not include a
'military school', within the definition of the term 'school', the
government has, by the resolution dated 26/09/1995 provided that the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1981 would apply to the military schools and the employees of
the same. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Rules
of 1981 would apply to the case of the petitioner and it would be the
duty of the education officer to place the name of the petitioner in a
waiting list so that the name of the petitioner could be recommended to
some other school run by the education department or social welfare
department. It is submitted that since the provisions of the Rules of
1981 are made applicable to the employees of the military schools in
view of the government resolution dated 26/09/1995, a direction may
0707WP2437.17-Judgment 4/5
be issued against the Education Officer (Secondary) to absorb the
petitioner in some other school, i.e. a military school or any other
school run by the departments of the government. It is stated that a
direction may be issued against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to release the
arrears of salary of the petitioner.
5. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, states on a perusal of the
government resolution dated 26/09/1995 that an appropriate order
may be passed in the circumstances of the case. It is stated that the
claim of the petitioner for salary till the month of March, 2014 would be
time barred as this writ petition is filed on 30/03/2017. It is stated that
a monetary claim could be granted only for a period of three years
preceding the date of filing of the petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the government resolution as also the provisions of rule 25-A
of the Rules of 1981, it appears that it would be necessary to direct the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 to absorb the petitioner in a school in which the
petitioner could be absorbed as per the Rules, as the government
resolution dated 26/09/1995 make the provisions of the Rules of 1981
applicable to the employees of the military school.
0707WP2437.17-Judgment 5/5
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to absorb the
petitioner in any other school, where the absorption of the petitioner is
permissible as early as possible so that the petitioner should not be out
of service for a long. If the salary of the petitioner from 01/04/2014 till
28/02/2015, is not paid to the petitioner, we direct the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 to send the salary bills of the petitioner for the said period
to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 within two weeks and the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 should release the salary in favour of the petitioner for the
period from 01/04/2014 till 28/02/2015, if not paid, within three
months from the date of the receipt of the bills from the respondent
Nos.4 and 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
