Bombay High Court
Hitendra Darbarsing Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp8958.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8958 OF 2016
1 Hitendra s/o Darbarsing Patil
age 32 years, occ. Service
r/o At Post Yawal, Tq. Yawal
Dist. Jalgaon
2 Ganesh s/o Balu Patil
age 34 years, occ. Service
r/o At Post Yawal, Tq. Yawal
Dist. Jalgaon
3 Bhupendra s/o Dinkar Rane
age 31 years, occ. Service
r/o At Post Yawal, Tq. Yawal
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Municipal Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
4 The Chief Officer,
Yawal Nagar Parishad,
Yawal, Tq. Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon
5 Yawal Nagar Parishad's
Sane Guruji Secondary and
Higher Secondary School,
Yawal, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon
Through its Chairman
6 The President, School Committee,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:52:00 :::
{2}
wp8958.16.odt
Sane Guruji Secondary and
Higher Secondary School
Yawal, Tq. Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon
7 The Head Master
Sane Guruji Secondary and
Higher Secondary School,
Yawal, Tq. Yawal
Dist. Jalgaon Respondents
Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel i/ by Mr. Y.B. Bolkar, advocate for
petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, AGP for respondents 1 to 3.
Mr. N.S. Tekale, advocate for respondents 4 and 6.
Mr. N.R. Dayama, advocate for respondents 5 and 7.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 27th July, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.) :
1 Petitioners are assailing the order dated
20/28.06.2016, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik
Division, Nasik, refusing to accord approval to the appointment of
petitioners, made by the Respondent-Institution in the year 2013.
2 In the impugned order, it is recorded by the Deputy
Director of Education that the Institution did not obtain no
objection of the Committee constituted in observance of the
Government Resolution dated 19.07.2014. The objection in respect
of absorption of surplus teachers has also been raised in the
impugned order. It is further recorded that while making
appointments, it was incumbent upon the Management to take
into consideration the revised roster prepared on 21.06.2011.
{3}
wp8958.16.odt
3 The petitioners contend that the Management had
approached the Deputy Director of Education seeking permission
to accord approval for issuing advertisements on 17.09.2012,
21.12.2012 and 15.05.2013, however, applications tendered by the
Institution were not considered and there was no communication
issued by the office of Deputy Director of Education either
according approval for publication of advertisement or refusing
request of the Management. It is further pointed out that the
appointments have been made by the Management in observance
of the reservation policy and there is no backlog in respect of
reserved category employees in the Institution. This aspect has not
been controverted by the respondents. It is further specifically
informed by the Deputy Director of Education, in his
communication dated 24.07.2017, addressed to the Assistant
Government Pleader that the contention of the petitioners, that the
Management has appointed petitioners as per the backlog and
roster, is correct. It is further informed that there are no surplus
teachers of Junior College remained to be absorbed in Nasik region
and as such, objection raised by the Deputy Director of Education
in respect of absorption of surplus teachers does not survive. The
ground for refusal to accord approval i.e. the management has not
secured no objection from the Committee also does not survive for
the reason that the Management has in fact approached the
Deputy Director of Education, however, there was no response
from the concerned office. Even otherwise, the substantial
objection in respect of filling up backlog vacancies by absorption of
surplus teachers does not hold good and as such, action of the
Management in making appointment of petitioners cannot be
{4}
wp8958.16.odt
faulted.
4 In view of above, order passed by the Deputy Director
of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik dated 20/28.06.2016, stands
quashed and set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the
Deputy Director of Education for reconsideration. Since it is
noticed that the Management has removed all the deficiencies, the
Deputy Director of Education is directed to accord approval to the
appointment of petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of three months from today.
5 Learned Counsel for the Management, on instructions,
informs that since appointments of the petitioners were terminated
only on the ground of refusal to accord approval to their
appointments by the Deputy Director of Education, the orders of
termination would be recalled and petitioners would be absorbed
in service. In view of the statement made above, on behalf of the
Management, no orders as regards absorption of the petitioners
and setting aside the order of termination, need be issued.
6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no
order as to costs.
A.M.DHAVALE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp8958.16
