Bombay High Court
Jogeshwari Education Society And ... vs The Education Inspector West Zone ... on 30 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
dgm 1 901-wp-159-14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 159 OF 2014
1 Jogeshwari Educational Society
2 Arvind Gandbhir High School,
Jogeshwari (East),Mumbai .... Petitioners
vs
1 The Education Inspector, West Zone
2 The Deputy Director of Education,
Mumbai
3 The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents
Mr. Arvind G. Kothari for the petitioners
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 to 3-State.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : June 30, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.) :
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of parties.
2 The limited relief claimed in the Petitions is for a direction
to Respondent No.1 to grant approval to one Mrs. Maya M. Pangam as
Headmistress of the school .
dgm 2 901-wp-159-14.sxw
3 It is unfortunate that the Petitioner which is an educational
institute is required to approach this Court even for such matters. It
depicts as to how on account of bureaucratic red-tapism, the Courts
are flooded with unnecessary litigations.
4 One Mr. E.M. Kumbhar was working in the Petitioner No.2-
school under the management of Petitioner No.2. He was
superannuated on 30.01.2011. In his place one Mrs. Maya Pangam
came to be appointed as the headmistress. The appointment of said
Mrs. Maya Pangam came to be challenged by one Ms. Sandhya
Mahadik before the learned School Tribunal on the ground of
supersession. The learned School Tribunal vide its judgment and
order dated 19.01.2013 held that the appointment of said Mrs. Maya
Pangam cannot be termed as illegal.
5 Even prior to the matter going before the School Tribunal,
the Petitioner No.1 had made representation to Respondent No.1 for
grant of approval to the appointment of said Mrs. Maya Pangam as
headmistress. After the order was passed by the School Tribunal, he
dgm 3 901-wp-159-14.sxw
same was communicated to Respondent No.1. However, Respondent
No.1 informed the Petitioners that his Office proposes to file an Appeal
against the order of the School Tribunal and as such, till that period
the approval cannot be granted to the appointment of the said Mrs.
Maya Pangam.
6 We fail to understand as to what locus Respondent No.1
has, to file an Appeal with regard to the matter pertaining to the
interse seniority between the teachers in the Petitioner No.2-school.
If any of the teachers is aggrieved with regard to the interse seniority
of such teacher, such a teacher can always take recourse to the
remedy available in law. As a matter of fact, vide order dated
20.06.2013 in Writ Petition No.534/2015, we have dismissed the
Petition of one of the teachers namely, Mahajan Sudhakar Mallikarjun,
reserving his right to take recourse to the alternate remedy available
to him in law. However, till such time the order of the School
Tribunal holds the field, Respondent No.1 has no other option, but to
grant approval to the appointment of said Mrs. Maya Pangam as a
Headmistress, the same having been held to be valid in law.
dgm 4 901-wp-159-14.sxw
7 We would have considered directing an action to be taken
against the said Mr. Bagul, in showing undue interest in the matter
and proposing to file an Appeal. However, we are informed that he is
since retired, therefore, we are refraining ourself from taking any
action in the matter.
8 In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned
orders dated 22.12.2011 and 30.10.2013 are quashed and set aside.
Since Respondent No.1 has placed on record order dated 29.06.2017
granting approval to the said Mrs. Maya Pangam with effect from
30.01.2011 a mandate in that regard would not now be necessary.
9 Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
10 No costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) (B. R. GAVAI J.)
