Bombay High Court
Pravin Panjabrao Vidhate ... vs The State Of Mah. Mumbai & 3 Others on 12 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp141.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.141 of 2002
1. Pravin Panjabrao Vidhate,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Gangotri Nagar,
Near Tapowan Gate,
University Road,
Camp, Amravati.
2. Anil Dnyanrao Maske,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Gangotri Nagar,
Near Tapowan Gate,
University Road,
Camp, Amravati.
3. Sudhakar Damodarrao Gudadhe,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Gangotri Nagar,
Near Tapowan Gate,
University Road, Camp,
Amravati.
4. Sunil Gulabrao Kale,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Gangotri Nagar,
Near Tapowan Gate,
University Road,
Camp, Amravati.
5. Rajesh Diwakarrao Borade,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Pawan Nagar,
Near Gopal Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2017 23:55:19 :::
2
wp141.02.odt
Sutagirni Road,
Amravati.
6. Devidas Shankarrao Umap,
Aged Major,
Forest Colony,
Near Yashoda Nagar
Bye-pass Road,
Amravati.
7. Vilas Umakant Umap,
Aged Major,
Kanta Nagar, Government
Quarters, Near I.F.I. Colony,
Amravati,
8. Dadarao R. Kakad,
Aged about Major,
C/o P. Vidhate,
Gangotri Nagar,
Near Tapowan Gate,
Amravati. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Higher & Technical
Education, Mantralaya Extension,
Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training,
Amravati Divisional Office,
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2017 23:55:19 :::
3
wp141.02.odt
3. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Shikshan
Prasaral Sanstha,
through its Secretary M.U. Ingle,
Camp Amravati.
4. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Mahavidyalaya,
through its Principal,
Camp Amravati. ... Respondents
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
th
Dated : 12 July, 2017
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. This petition challenges the provision of Rule 25A of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981 ("the MEPS Rules") and seeks continuity in
service on the posts of teachers which the petitioners were
holding in the Junior College run by the respondent
No.3-Society.
wp141.02.odt
2. The petition is filed by eight petitioners, who were
appointed on 27-7-1992, 1-1-1993, 5-3-1993 and 22-2-1993 as
teachers in MCVC Course run by the respondent No.3-Society.
The appointments of all the petitioners were approved by the
competent authority and the dates of their approval are also
stated in para 2 of the petition. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioners were permanent employees in the services of the
respondent Nos.3 and 4, and the Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training, Amravati had also accorded approval to
their appointments as such.
3. By an order dated 18-8-2000, the MCVC Course was
derecognized, as the Junior College was categorized as
Category E. The recognition was restored by an order
dated 29-8-2001 by categorizing the Junior College as
Category D. It is the specific stand of the respondent No.2-
Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training that
in spite of the specific instructions issued, the services of the
petitioners were not terminated to implement the order of
wp141.02.odt
withdrawal of recognition passed on 18-8-2000. It is also not in
dispute that the services of the petitioners were never terminated
and there were no orders of reappointment of the petitioners
issued, though the respondent No.2- Deputy Director of
Vocational Education and Training insisted upon for doing so.
Though the admissions in 11th Standard were directed to be
discontinued from the Academic Session 2000-2001, the classes
of 12th Standard were permitted to be continued, as the students
already admitted were undergoing the course of studies.
Consequently, the petitioners continued in service in spite of the
order dated 18-8-2000 till the date of 29-8-2001, when the
recognition was restored. There was no break in the service of
the petitioners. In such a situation, the respondent No.2 ought to
have visualized the consequences of restoration of recognition,
which would grant continuity to the petitioners in service. Thus,
the insistence upon reappointment of the petitioner on the post
after restoration of recognition was uncalled for.
4. In view of above, it is not necessary for us to consider
wp141.02.odt
the question of validity of Rule 25A of the MEPS Rules and we
hold that the petitioners are entitled to continuity in service from
the date of their initial appointments as teachers recognized by
the respondent No.2 and the period from 18-8-2000 to
29-8-2001 shall not be treated as break in their service.
Shri Sambre, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.3 and 4, makes a statement that the petitioners
have also received the salary for the period from 18-8-2000 to
29-8-2001. Therefore, the question of payment of salary to the
petitioners for the period of April, May and part of June does not
survive.
5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Lanjewar
wp141.02.odt
