Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Ors vs Prakash Janardan Zarekar on 8 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Writ Petition No.721/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.721 OF 2011
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Government Pleader,
High Court, Bench at Aurangabad
2. The Director (Vocational Education),
Directorate of Vocational Education &
Training, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai.
3. The Deputy Director,
Vocational Education & Training,
Regional Office, Old Agra Road,
Nashik ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Mr. Prakash Janardan Zarekar,
Age major, Occu. Full Time Teacher,
Government Technical High School,
Varangaon, District Jalgaon ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for petitioners
Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent
.....
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED: 8th June, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
1. Taken out from Final Hearing Board.
Writ Petition No.721/2011
2. The petitioners/ State have challenged the judgment
and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(MAT), Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application
No.931/2009, dated 21/4/2010, whereby respondent's (original
applicant's) application has been allowed and the impugned
reversal order dated 5/9/2008 was quashed and set aside. That
resulted into a direction to restore his position to the post of Full
Time Teacher with continuity and back wages, with further
direction of entitlement of difference of salary and all other
consequential benefits.
3. The scope of jurisdiction to deal and decide the order
passed by the MAT, as settled, is very limited. After hearing the
learned counsel for the parties and after going through the
averments and the documents and the reasons so provided in the
impugned judgment and order, we see there is no case made out
by the State to interfere with the reason as there is no case of
perversity and/or contrary to the law and record.
4. The respondent was appointed on 25/9/1990 as a Full
Time Teacher. He was posted as Lecturer in Engineering and
joined on promotional post on 12/7/1998. The representation
was made on 12/11/2000 as per the condition mentioned in the
order. The respondent worked on the promotional post. The
Writ Petition No.721/2011
petitioner Department, however, issued a show-cause-notice on
13/10/2003 and on ground that the promotion order was wrong
and against the recruitment rules. The respondent replied the
same and prayed for requisite benefits and supported his
entitlement.
5. On 5/9/2008, after 5 years, the reversion order in
question was passed. The respondent, therefore, preferred
Original Application before the MAT. After hearing the parties,
the impugned order was passed, thereby the Original Application
of the respondent has been allowed.
6. This Court, as noted, though admitted the petition on
7/2/2011, not granted any interim relief. That resulted into
implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of
respondent. The respondent must have been enjoying the same
without any disturbance as the impugned order remained intact
till this date, practically for more than 8 years. The fact
remained that the respondent had worked on the post from
12/7/1998 till 5/9/2008. He got all the benefits from the date of
order passed by the Tribunal, dated 21/4/2010.
7. Even otherwise, as noted, the learned Tribunal has
accepted the third mode of promotion by transfer to the post.
Writ Petition No.721/2011
The respondent was eligible for the appointment as J.S./ A.E.S.,
though the same was not from the only feeder cadre as
contended by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State. The
learned Tribunal found that the appointment/ transfer on
promotion was well within the framework of service regulations
and the documents by referring to various office notes and
correspondences as referred in para Nos.6 to 8 of the judgment.
These reasons and documents reflect the application of mind to
the record including the seniority list so referred and relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondent. We are also inclined
to observe that, the modes available, out of which, even if one
mode referred and utilised by the Department at the relevant
time while promoting the petitioner along with others, there is no
illegality. The respondent was on the post for more than 8 to 9
years as referred in the reasons. We find there is no perversity
in the order. The learned Tribunal has also rightly noted that the
time which the Department has taken after issuing show-cause-
notice to take adverse order/ against the respondent was
unaccepted.
8. The learned Tribunal has also, in para No.9 dealt with
various other decisions of the Tribunal, whereby, in similarly
situated circumstances, such order of reversion was not
accepted. The very recruitment rules of the post of L.E./ A.E.S.
Writ Petition No.721/2011
and J.S.-cum-J.A.A. were referred by the State Government in
para No.9. The Tribunal has applied its mind even to the rules,
regulations and given its opinion/ interpretation based upon the
other supporting documents and material. There is no case to
disturb the interpretation so given while passing the order.
9. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, and for
the reasons so recorded above, we are inclined to accept that the
order of reversion so passed was unsustainable and it was rightly
quashed and set aside by granting the benefit by the learned
Tribunal, and further by passing all the consequential benefits as
mentioned in impugned order.
10. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. Rule discharged.
No costs.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (ANOOP V. MOHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
