Bombay High Court
Ku. Pradnya Uttamrao Ramteke vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5907 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Ku. Pradnya Uttamrao Ramteke, Aged 30
years, Occ: Service, R/o Shanti Nagar,
Benoda Road, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-440 032.
2) Director of Education (Primary), Directorate
of Education, Maharashtra State, Central
Building Anne Besant Marg, Pune.
3) Deputy Director of Education, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
4) Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through Chief
Executive Officer.
5) Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
Education Officer, Primary.
6) Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Madhyamik
(Boys) Science Core, Amravati.
7) Shri Madhav S/o Narayanrao Tayade, R/o
At Post Shri Colony, Daryapur, Tah:
Daryapur, Dist: Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs.R.S.Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Sahil Bhangde, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Mr.Sunil Shinde, counsel for the respondent No.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 19.07.2017
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 2/10
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
against the respondents to reopen the unit for the blind students in the
respondent No.6-school and permit the petitioner to discharge her duty
at the newly opened unit for the blind students. The petitioner has
challenged the order dated 17/05/2014 issued by the respondent No.2-
Director of Education closing down the unit in the Zilla Parishad
Madhyamik (Boys) School, Amravati. By amending the petition, the
petitioner has also challenged the order of her termination dated
22/02/2016. The petitioner has sought a direction against the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period
from June, 2014 onwards.
2. The Central Government had floated a scheme for special
teaching/training for the disabled and the State of Maharashtra was
implementing the said scheme by opening units/centers for education
of the disabled in private aided and unaided schools and also in the
schools run by the zilla parishad. In pursuance of the said scheme, the
Zilla Parishad, Amravati was running a unit for education of the
disabled since 21 years and since a second unit was sanctioned for Zilla
Parishad Madhyamik (Boys) School, Amravati, the zilla parishad issued
an advertisement on 26/12/2011 inviting applications for appointment
to the post of special teachers. One of the posts was earmarked for
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 3/10
scheduled castes and the other for the open category. The petitioner
applied for the post earmarked for the scheduled castes and was
appointed as a special teacher in the newly opened unit of the zilla
parishad in the respondent No.6-school on 11/07/2013. Since the
strength of the students in the center for disabled had dwindled, the
respondent No.2 directed the zilla parishad by the impugned order
dated 17/05/2014 to close the second unit that was recently opened
and in which the petitioner was appointed. In pursuance of the said
order of the respondent No.2, the unit/center in which the petitioner
was appointed was closed from 20/05/2014. Though the unit was
closed on 20/05/2014, a formal order of termination of the services of
the petitioner was served on the petitioner on 22/02/2016. The order
of the Director of Education closing the unit for the blind students in the
respondent No.6-school as also the termination order of the petitioner
dated 22/02/2016, is impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition.
3. Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that though the unit was closed with effect from
20/05/2014, communications were exchanged between the zilla
parishad and the State Government as to whether the petitioner could
be absorbed in some other unit or center. It is submitted that it was not
necessary for the zilla parishad to seek approval to the appointment of
the petitioner as a special teacher from the State Government. It is
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 4/10
submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made in view of
the provisions of Sections 243, 248 and 252 of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. It is stated that the
recruitment rules of the zilla parishad were followed before the
petitioner was appointed. It is submitted that in this background, it was
necessary for the respondents to have absorbed the petitioner in some
other unit/center run in any other school in pursuance of the scheme of
the Central Government. It is submitted that the Aurangabad Bench
had, by the judgment dated 25/08/2016 in a bunch of writ petitions
bearing Writ Petition No.1030 of 2016 set aside the orders terminating
the services of the approved special teachers in the private aided and
unaided schools under the scheme and permitted the respondents to
take appropriate action only after granting an opportunity to the special
teachers of showing cause against their termination. It is submitted that
after the judgment was rendered by the Aurangabad Bench in a bunch
of writ petitions, the State Government had asked the respondent No.6-
school vide communication that whether any teacher in the said school
could be absorbed. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case,
it would be necessary for the respondents to absorb the petitioner in
some other center or unit. It is stated that since the salary is not paid to
the petitioner from June, 2014 a direction needs to be issued against
the respondents to release the unpaid salary to the petitioner. It is
stated that though the petitioner and the respondent No.7 were
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 5/10
appointed by the same advertisement dated 26/12/2011, the
respondent No.7 is continued in the unit/center run by the zilla
parishad and the petitioner's services are terminated.
4. Mrs.Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that the petitioner
was appointed only in pursuance of a scheme floated by the Central
Government and implemented by the State Government through
various aided and unaided schools, the zilla parishads and the other
local bodies. It is submitted that after the petitioner was appointed in
pursuance of the scheme implemented by the State Government, it was
necessary for the zilla parishad to secure the approval to the
appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted that the services of the
special teachers working in the school under the scheme are approved
and some of the proposals for grant of approval were under
consideration when the matter was decided by the Aurangabad Bench.
It is submitted that when a query was made by the State Government to
the respondent No.6 as to whether the teachers working in the center
run in the respondent No.6-school could be absorbed, it was noticed
that the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the State
Government and hence the petitioner could not have been absorbed in
any other center or unit as per the directions in the judgment rendered
by the Aurangabad Bench. It is submitted that the services of the
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 6/10
petitioner were not approved by the State Government and since the
unit in which the petitioner was working was closed down due to
inadequate students, the petitioner cannot be absorbed in any other
center or unit.
5. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel for the respondent-zilla
parishad, submitted that the petitioner was not appointed in a regular
vacancy in the services of the zilla parishad and the petitioner was
appointed in pursuance of the scheme under which a center or unit was
permitted to be opened in the respondent No.6-school that was run by
the zilla parishad. It is submitted that the zilla parishad was operating a
unit in the respondent No.6-school for the last 21 years under the
scheme. It is submitted that there was a vacancy in the unit run by the
zilla parishad for 21 years and a vacancy in the recently opened unit
hence the advertisement was issued on 26/12/2011 inviting
applications for appointment on two posts of special teachers. It is
submitted that the respondent No.7, who belongs to the general
category was appointed in the unit that was being operated for past 21
years and which is still in operation and is not closed down. It is stated
that the appointment of the petitioner was made for the newly opened
unit in which there was a vacancy for the scheduled castes and which
was directed to be closed down by the order dated 20/05/2014. It is
submitted that since the petitioner was not a regular employee of the
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 7/10
zilla parishad and was appointed only in pursuance of the scheme for
the disabled, the zilla parishad could not have absorbed the petitioner
in the services of the zilla parishad. It is submitted that if the zilla
parishad is again permitted to restart the closed unit or a new unit, the
claim of the petitioner would be considered. It is stated that after the
unit was closed with effect from 20/05/2014, the petitioner could not
have worked in the said unit. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid,
the prayer of the petitioner for grant of arrears of salary is also liable to
be rejected.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner
was not appointed as a regular teacher in the school run by the zilla
parishad but was appointed in a center-unit that was newly opened in
the respondent No.6-school for educating disabled under the scheme of
the Central Government. Unfortunately, within a year the unit in which
the petitioner was appointed was required to be closed down. The
services of the petitioner were not approved by the State Government as
was done in respect of several other special teachers, who were working
in the centers/units in the other schools. When approved special
teachers were terminated due to the closure of the units/centers in
some other schools, they had filed writ petitions before the Aurangabad
Bench of this court. The writ petitions filed by the approved special
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 8/10
teachers were partly allowed by the Aurangabad Bench and it was held
that the services of the approved special teachers could not have been
terminated without granting an opportunity of hearing to them. The
respondents in the matter before the Aurangabad Bench were directed
to consider absorbing the petitioners in those cases in the centers/units
that were functional. No such direction for absorption was however
granted in respect of the teachers, who had filed the writ petitions but
whose services were not approved. The services of the petitioner in the
present case were not approved by the State Government. We do not
find that the appointment of the petitioner is made in pursuance of the
provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act,
as stated on behalf of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner
is not made in a regular vacancy in the establishment of the zilla
parishad. The petitioner was appointed on the post of special teacher, as
could be seen from the documents annexed to the petition, for the
purpose of implementing the scheme of the Central Government for
educating the disabled. If the unit in which the petitioner appointed
was closed down within a year and if the services of the petitioner were
not approved till then, the petitioner cannot claim her absorption in any
other center or unit run in the other schools. The State Government is
obliged to absorb those special teachers who possess an order of
approval to their services. It is fairly stated on behalf of the respondent-
zilla parishad that the zilla parishad may consider appointing the
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 9/10
petitioner if the unit becomes functional in the near future. In the
circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot effectively challenge the
order of her termination or the order of the Director of Education
directing the closure of the unit in which the petitioner was appointed.
7. While holding so, we do not find any merit in the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner that while retaining the
services of the respondent No.7 in the unit/center run by the zilla
parishad, the services of the petitioner are illegally terminated. There is
no merit in this submission as it appears from the submission made on
behalf of the zilla parishad that the respondent No.7 was appointed in
the vacancy in the other unit that was run by the zilla parishad for the
past 21 years. The petitioner, who belongs to the scheduled castes was
appointed in a vacancy for the newly opened unit in the year 2013-
2014. Since the respondent No.7 was considered for appointment in
the other unit which is still functional, the petitioner cannot claim parity
as the cases of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 are entirely
different. The unit for which the petitioner was appointed is closed and
the unit for which the respondent No.7 was appointed is functioning
from past 21 years and is still not closed down. Though some
communications were exchanged between the zilla parishad and the
government, the petitioner could not have been absorbed in any other
center/unit after the State Government found that the petitioner's
1907WP5907.15-Judgment 10/10
services were not approved by the State Government like the other
special teachers in the other schools and the claim of the petitioner for
absorption could not have been considered until the other approved
special teachers were absorbed in the centers/units in which there were
vacancies.
8. We do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for
grant of arrears of salary from June, 2014. The respondent-zilla
parishad has specifically denied that the petitioner was working in any
unit after the closure of the unit in which the petitioner was appointed,
on 20/05/2014. In the absence of the unit, the petitioner could not
have worked. The prayer of the petitioner for a direction against the
respondent Nos.1 to 6 to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner is
therefore liable to be rejected.
Since the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be
granted, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
