Bombay High Court
Madhumati Prlhadguru Toke vs State Of Maha & Ors on 23 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 2600 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.2600 of 2004
* Madhumati Pralhadguru Toke,
Age 43 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Maharshi Kanad Vidyalaya,
Parali Vaijinath, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary for Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3) The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
4) The Secretary,
Maharshi Kanad Education Society,
Parali Vaijinath, Dist. Beed.
5) The Head Mistress,
Maharshi Kanad Vidyalaya,
Parali Vaijinath, Dist. Beed. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. S.W. Munde, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
----
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:40:25 :::
2 WP 2600 of 2004
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.
Judgment reserved on : 21 June 2017.
Judgment pronounced on : 23 June 2017.
JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):
1) The petition is filed for giving direction to
respondent-authorities to treat the petitioner as secondary
school teacher, trained graduate teacher. Both the sides
are heard.
2) It is the case of the petitioner that on 30-6-1996
the school committee of respondent No.4-institution
appointed her as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No.5-
school on the scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is her contention
that she is graduate in the subjects like Economics, Public
Administration and Sociology. It is her case that by order
dated 20-9-1997 she came to be appointed again but for
the year 1997-98 and on the scale of Rs.1200-2040. It is
he case that since her appointment made in June 1997 she
continued to work on the scale of Rs.1200-2040 but she
was initially appointed as secondary school teacher and
3 WP 2600 of 2004
she was taking classes of 8th to 10th Standards. It is her
case that her appointment was permanently approved by
the Education Officer, respondent No.3 on permanent
post. It is her case that though she was appointed in
secondary section as trained graduate teacher, scale of
primary teacher was paid to her from June 1997 and in
spite of several requests made by her, the scale of
secondary school teacher is not given to her. She did not
make representation to the Education Officer and she
directly filed present proceeding in February 2004. She
has claimed arrears of salary for the period starting from
June 1997.
3) The record produced by the petitioner herself
shows that the first appointment made by order dated 30-
6-1996 was on temporary post. It is the contention of the
school that this appointment was made on leave vacancy
and it was not as against permanent post and so it was for
one year. The second appointment of the petitioner was
against Scheduled Tribe category and it was on scale of
Rs.1200-2040, a trained teacher in primary school. A copy
of undertaking given by petitioner is produced to show
4 WP 2600 of 2004
that in the year 1997-98 also the appointment was only for
one year as it was against reserved category post.
Scheduled Tribe post.
4) By reply-affidavit the school has denied that the
petitioner was given appointment as against permanent
post in the year 1996 or 1997 and the post was of trained
graduate teacher. The Government has also denied this
contention of the petitioner. No record like advertisement
published and permission obtained of the Education
Officer for publishing any permanent post is produced by
the petitioner. The record of approval shows that for the
year 1996-97 the appointment was only for one year
starting from 1-7-1996 and the scale of Rs.1400-2600 was
given. The second approval is with effect from 22-6-1998
on permanent post in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. It
appears that resolution was passed by the school
committee for giving such appointment on 22-6-1998 and
it was treated as a trained teacher (D.Ed.). She has
admitted that right from that year she received the salary
in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. She never challenged this
appointment and she never raised grievance of aforesaid
5 WP 2600 of 2004
nature even before the Education Officer in the past.
After giving of the appointment to the petitioner in the
scale of primary trained teacher, at least three teachers
came to be appointed in secondary school in the scale of
trained graduate teacher but the petitioner did not raise
grievance about their appointments and those
appointments are not challenged. In view of this record
and the circumstances that she accepted the appointment
in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 and continued to work on
that scale till the year 2004, till filing the petition, it is
necessary to infer that she was appointed in the scale of
Rs.1200-2040, on permanent post. This scale is the scale
of primary trained teacher. There can also be point of
subjects as secondary school is involved but there is no
need to discuss that point.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on the ratio of the case of the Supreme Court
reported as (2007) 9 SCC 201 (State of Maharashtra v.
Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari). The Apex Court has
considered the Government Resolutions of 1979 and 1982
which were issued to see that the disparity between the
6 WP 2600 of 2004
pay scales of graduates who were trained teachers
working in primary school and the trained graduate
teacher teaching for secondary school is removed. The
scheme was framed and 25% of the posts of trained
primary teachers were upgraded for giving scale of
trained graduate teacher. Thus, if at all the petitioner
wants to get the scale of trained graduate teacher in
primary school, she can do so only by getting the scale as
per the scheme of the Government shown in the aforesaid
Government Resolutions. The facts of the reported case
show that the Apex Court considered the views of this
Court which can be found in the Full Bench decision in the
case reported as AIR 2000 Bom 394 (Jayashree Chavan v.
State of Maharashtra) and 2003 (Supp) Bom CR 372
(Kondiba v. State of Maharashtra) . In the present matter,
the petitioner got appointment on permanent post in
primary school and on the scale of trained teacher in
primary school as per her contention and the record. In
view of these circumstances, she cannot claim the relief of
direction to the respondents to the effect that the scale of
trained graduate teacher needs to be given to her by
treating her teacher of secondary school. Thus on facts,
7 WP 2600 of 2004
there are no merits in the case of the petitioner.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on some observations made by the Supreme
Court in the case reported as (2011) 2 SCC 94 (Safiya Bee
v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain) . This is on the point of
binding precedents. There cannot be dispute over the
proposition made in the case of Tukaram (cited supra) and
the proposition of Tukaram's case cited supra is binding
on this Court. But in view of the facts of the present
matter the petitioner cannot get the relief claimed.
7) Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on following reported and un-reported
cases.
(1) (2005) 1 SCC 444 (U.P. SRTC v. State of U.P.
(2) (2016) 12 SCC 514 (Union of India v. Abhimanyu
Tiwari)
(3) (1997) 6 SCC 365 (Raj Pal Verma v. Chancellor of
Meerut University)
(4) 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 673 (Kakoli Shyamlal Sircer v.
Nagpur University)
8 WP 2600 of 2004
(4) Writ Petition No.6437 of 2007 (Govind Narayan
Gunajal v. The State of Maharashtra) dated 12-3-
2008.
In view of the facts of those cases the relief was given. In
view of the facts of the present matter, the relief claimed
cannot be given to the petitioner. In the result, the
petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
