Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Madhav Gangadhar Metewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1037 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1037 Bom
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
Madhav Gangadhar Metewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 March, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
                                      {1}
                                                                  wp8078.16.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 8078 OF 2016
                                  
 Madhav s/o Gangadhar Metewad
 age 26 years, occ. Service as
 Assistant Teacher
 r/o Galli No. 5, Pundlik nagar
 Auragnabad, 
 Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad                                          Petitioner

          Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through Secretary
          School Education and Sports Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

 2.       Deputy Director of Education 
          Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad

 3.       Education Officer (Secondary)
          Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.

 4.       The Headmaster
          New High School Dawarwadi
          Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

 5.       The President/Secretary
          Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
          Aurangabad
          Dist. Aurangabad                          Respondents

 Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for the petitioner. 
 Mr. A.R. Borulkar. AGP for Respondents 1 to 3.
 Mr. B.B. Bhise, advocate for respondent no. 4.
 Mr. D.J. Choudhary, advocate for respondent no. 5.
  
                                      CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
                                                     P. R. BORA, JJ.
                                     DATE     : 24th  MARCH, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)





                                             {2}
                                                                         wp8078.16.odt

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Petitioner is objecting to the order passed by respondent Education Officer refusing to accord approval to the appointment of petitioner on the ground that appointment has been made by the management in violation of the policy of the Government declared on 05.10.2011. It is also recorded in the order impugned in the petition that there are 17 surplus teachers available and as such, request made by the institution for according approval to the appointment of petitioner cannot be considered.

4. It is the contention of petitioner that his appointment is made in observance of the procedure prescribed by the education department. Our attention is invited to the communication dated 29.06.2012 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, permitting the management to fill in 12 vacancies of teachers from Scheduled Caste category. The appointment appears to have been made during implementation of the special drive of filling up of the vacancies prescribed for backward category. There does not appear to be any dispute that the procedure for making appointment has been observed. The general instructions issued on 05.10.2011 cannot be made applicable for filing up the vacancies prescribed for reserved category and for taking up special drive for filling such vacancies.

5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated

{3} wp8078.16.odt

02.01.2016 passed by the Education Officer does not appear to be sustainable. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Order passed by the Education Officer on 02.01.2016 refusing to accord approval to the appointment of petitioner is quashed and set aside. Education Officer is directed to re-consider the proposal for according approval to the appointment of petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today and, it is accordingly directed. The Education Officer shall not reject the proposal merely on the ground that surplus candidates are required to be absorbed. Rule made absolute to the extent specified above. No costs.

              ( P. R. BORA )                               ( R.M.BORDE )
                 JUDGE                                          JUDGE

 dyb





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter