Bombay High Court
Ku. Hemlata Devidasrao Deshmukh ... vs The State Of Maha. Thr Its ... on 14 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1403WP5497.09-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5497 OF 2009
PETITIONERS :- 1. Ku. Hemlata Devidasrao Deshmukh, aged
about 42 years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla
Parishad School, Namuna, Amravati,
Panchayat Samiti Amravati.
resident of Sawkar Apartment, Maltekadi
Road, Amravati.
2. Smt. Sangita Rajendra Holey, aged about 38
years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla Parishad
School, Benoda, Amravati, Panchayat Samiti
Amravati.
resident of Chhatrapati Nagar, Near
Vidhyapith Colony, Amravati.
3. Smt.Sushma Ramesh Kinekar, aged about 54
years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla Parishad
School, Namuna, Amravati, Pancyayat Samiti
Amravati.
resident of Shyam Nagar, Housing Board
Colony, Amravati.
4. Smt.Shakila Bano Sheikh Niyazulla, aged
about 45 years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla
Parishad Urdu School, (I.M.S.) Amravati.
resident of Pakija Colony, Balgaon Road,
Amravati.
5. Smt. Rumana Anjum Chiragoddin, aged
about 34 years, Occ.- Assistant Teacher, Zilla
Parishad Urdu School, (I.M.S.), Amravati.
resident of Chaprasipura, Camp, Amravati.
6. Shri Amikur Raheman A. Aziz, aged about
34 years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla
Parishad Urdu School, (I.M.S.), Amravati.
resident of Taj Nagar No.1, Galli No.2,
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:07 :::
1403WP5497.09-Judgment 2/4
7. Smt.Shahista Bi Yusuf Khan, aged about 40
years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla Parishad
Urdu School, (I.M.S.), Amravati.
resident of Asma Colony, Near Masjid,
Balgaon Road,, Amravati.
8. Smt.Nusrat Talat S. Sajid Ali, aged about 40
years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla Parishad
Urdu School, (I.M.S.), Amravati.
resident of Behind Rachana Apartment,
(Om), Vyankyapura, Amravati.
9. Smt.Maleka Tabssum Abdul Sajik, aged
about 35 years, Occ.-Assistant Teacher, Zilla
Parishad Urdu School, (I.M.S.), Amravati.
resident of Behind Primay School,
Chamanshawali, Tapowan Road, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary School Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
3. The Collector, Amravati District, Amravati.
4. The Municipal Commissioner, Amravati
Municipal Corporation, Amravati.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Amravati.
6. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat
Samiti, Amravati.
7. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat
Samiti, Amravati.
8. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:07 :::
1403WP5497.09-Judgment 3/4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vishal Anand, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.D. P. Thakre, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3,6 & 7.
Mr.J.B.Kasat, counsel for the respondent Nos.4, 5 & 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 14.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
communication of the respondent No.7-Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Amravati dated 11/11/2009 whereby the petitioners
have been declared as surplus teachers.
2. The writ petition is filed in the year 2009. Since we had
not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioners, the
petitioners have joined in the zilla parishad schools in which they were
absorbed after they were declared as surplus. The petitioners are
working in the school in which they are absorbed for more than seven
years. The petitioners have challenged the order declaring them as
surplus solely on the ground that they are seniors to some of the
employees that they were not declared as surplus. However, nothing is
brought by the petitioners on record despite grant of adjournment to
1403WP5497.09-Judgment 4/4
show that in the municipal council, the junior employees need to be
declared as surplus and not the seniors. In the circumstances of the
case, in the absence of any rule supporting the right in the petitioners to
be retained in the schools in which they were working and considering
the fact that the petitioners are now working in the zilla parishad school
for more than seven years, no case for interference with the impugned
communication/order is made out.
In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ
petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
