Bombay High Court
Ashwinkumar Madhukar Sonwane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
W.P.No.991/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 991 OF 2016
Ashwinikumar Madhukar Sonwane,
Age 31 years, Occu. Service,
R/o C/o Dayanand Vidyalaya,
Kawatha, Taluka Omerga,
District Osmanabad ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School Education & Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad
3. Dayanand Vidyalaya, Kawatha,
Taluka Omerga,
District Osmanabad, through
its Head Master ..Respondents
Mr S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2
Respondent no.3 served
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ
DATE : 18th July 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,
the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the decision dated 26 th
November 2015 recorded by respondent no.2 whereby the proposal
for approving the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior
Clerk with respondent no.3 - school has been turned down.
W.P.No.991/2016
3. The petitioner contends that he was inducted in employment as
a Junior Clerk on 13th July 2012. The proposal tendered by the
management seeking approval to the appointment was turned down
on 30th August 2013 by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Osmanabad, for the reason that the appointment has not
been made in consonance with the government policy declared on 6 th
February 2012. The petitioner submits that he continued in
employment, however, the management directed termination of his
services by oral orders after refusal of approval by the Education
Officer on 2nd September 2014. The petitioner, as such, approached
the School Tribunal by presenting appeal bearing No.75 of 2014. The
appeal tendered by the petitioner came to be allowed by the Presiding
Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur in view of the decision
dated 29nd September 2015. The respondents were directed to
reinstate the petitioner in employment with benefits of continuity of
service from the date of his termination. He was also held entitled to
claim full back wages. In pursuance to said decision, the petitioner
was permitted to resume the duties. The proposal tendered by the
management to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Osmanabad seeking approval to the appointment has been turned
down by the Education Officer, in view of the order dated 26 th
November 2015. Reason recorded by the Education Officer is policy
declared by the State Government on 6 th February 2012 thereby
deciding not to appoint employees until finalisation of new staffing
pattern.
W.P.No.991/2016
4. The petitioner contends that the decision taken by the State
Government is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner since he has
been appointed in the school by virtue of order dated 13 th July 2012.
The decision taken by the State Government in the year 2015 will
have no retrospective application since 2012. The submission made
on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered. The reason
recorded by the Education Officer for turning down the proposal is not
convincing.
5. As such, the decision taken by the Education Officer dated 26 th
November 2015 of refusing to accord approval to the appointment of
petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad shall reconsider the proposal
in accordance with the relevant policy prevailing on the date of
appointment of the petitioner and shall communicate the decision to
the petitioner as well as to the management, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of four months from today and is
directed accordingly.
6. Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above. There
shall be no order as to costs.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( R.M. BORDE, J.)
vvr
