Ku. Sushma Aatmaram Pakhare vs Mahila Seva Mandal, Wardha ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3567 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-4819-15.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 4819 OF 2015

 Ku. Sushma Aatmaram Pakhare,
 Aged about : 36 years,
 Occupation - Assistant Teacher,
 R/o "Shivneri" F-1,
 Mahavir Housing Society,
 Kelkarwadi, Wardha 442001.                                       ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. Mahila Seva Mandal Wardha,
    Through its Secretary,
    Sevagram Railway Station Road,
    Mahila Aashram, Wardha,
    Distt. Wardha, Pin Code - 442001.

 2. Sushil Himmatsinghka Vidyalay,
    Through its Head Master
    Sevagram Railway Station Road,
    Mahila Aashram, Wardha,
    Distt. Wardha, Pin Code - 442001.

 3. Yashwantrao Chavhan Maharashtra
    Open University, Nasik,
    Through its Registrar
    Dnyangangotri, Near Gangapur Dam,
    Nashik, Pin Code - 422222.

 4. Education Officer (Secondary)
    Zilla Parishad, Wardha.                                       ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Smt. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent No.4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

23/06/2017.

2 J-WP-4819-15.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration

that the action on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - i.e. the

Management and the school in not permitting the petitioner to

undertake B.Ed. Course conducted by Yashwantrao Chavhan

Maharashtra Open University, Nashik unless the petitioner gives an

undertaking that the petitioner would not claim the benefit of B.A. and

B.Ed. degrees, if there is reduction in the classes or sections, in future.

The petitioner was appointed in Ratnibai Vidyalaya run

by the respondent No.1 and in the month of June, 2015, the petitioner

was transferred to the respondent no.2 - School. Since the petitioner

had not secured B.Ed. Degree and was desirous of securing the same,

the petitioner applied for admission to the B.Ed. Course conducted by

the Yashwantrao Chavhan Maharashtra Open University during 2013,

2014 and 2015. The petitioner was however not permitted by the

management in the years 2013 and 2014 to pursue education with the

Open University while she was working with the respondent No.2. The

petitioner was again selected by the Open University for admission to

the B.Ed. Course in the year 2015 but the management did not permit

the petitioner to join the said course while serving in the respondent

No.2 - school unless the petitioner tendered an undertaking that the

3 J-WP-4819-15.odt

petitioner would not take the benefit of the said degree in future, if the

classes and sections in the school run by the petitioner No.1 - society

are reduced due to the reduction in the strength of the students. Since

according to the petitioner, the action on the part of the respondent

No.1 - management in seeking the aforesaid undertaking is bad in law,

the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking a declaration in that

regard.

When this matter came up before this Court on 19th

August, 2015, this Court permitted the petitioner to furnish the

undertaking as required by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, under protest

so that the petitioner could be admitted to the B.Ed. Course conducted

by the Open University. The petitioner was admitted to the B.Ed. Course

in the year 2015 and the Course is likely to be completed within a

couple of months from now. The petitioner has under protest furnished

an undertaking as desired by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a view to

ensure that the petitioner secures higher qualification i.e. B. Ed. Degree

by pursuing the education in the course conducted by the Open

University.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the action on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking an

undertaking to the aforesaid effect from the petitioner for permitting

4 J-WP-4819-15.odt

the petitioner to pursue further education, is bad in law. It is submitted

that the action on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to seek an

undertaking to the aforesaid effect would be against the public policy. It

is submitted that for continuously three years, the petitioner was

selected for admission to the B.Ed. Course conducted by the Open

University but due to the unreasonable demand on the part of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 of furnishing the undertaking, which is against

the public policy, the petitioner could not be admitted to the said

course. It is submitted that the course to which the petitioner is

admitted is about to conclude. It is stated that in the circumstances of

the case, it would be necessary to grant declaration as sought by the

petitioner.

Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 - Education Officer

(Secondary) supported the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that

time and again, the Education Officer (Secondary) had asked the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to join the B.Ed. Course

conducted by the Open University and to take further education. It is

stated that it would not be proper on the part of the respondent Nos.1

and 2 to secure the undertaking as is sought by them from the

petitioner.

5 J-WP-4819-15.odt

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the respondent No.4, it appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were

not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish an undertaking that

she would not be entitled to claim the benefit of her degree and training

qualification, if the sections or classes in the school are reduced. The

respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any reply to the writ petition.

There is nothing placed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record to

point out that they have the authority to seek an undertaking, as sought

by them from the petitioner. In the absence of any material to show that

the respondents were justified in seeking the undertaking from the

petitioner, in our view, the action on the part of the respondents would

not be proper. In our view, if the petitioner secures a degree during her

services as also the training qualification, the petitioner would be

entitled to the benefit of the same. The management cannot refuse to

grant permission to a teacher to secure higher education without any

valid reason. It is averred in the petition that since the petitioner would

be required to pursue education during vacation, the performance of

the petitioner would not be affected. If that is so, the management

could not have refused to grant permission to the petitioner to pursue

further education by imposing the condition of furnishing the

undertaking that she would not take the benefit of the degree secured

by her if the sections or classes are reduced.

6 J-WP-4819-15.odt

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

The undertaking furnished by the petitioner during the pendency of the

petition, under protest shall not be acted upon. It is needless to mention

that the petitioner would be entitled to the advantage or the benefit of

the degrees secured by her while she was working with the respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                               JUDGE




 Choulwar