Bombay High Court
Sonam Maroti Gavhane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 March, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP No.10639/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10639 OF 2016
Smt. Sonam Maroti Gavhane
Age:25 years, Occu:Service,
R/o.: Nagzari Parisar,
Near Hind Mata Chowk,
Ambejogai, Dist. Beed.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
throug78-2017h it's Secretary,
Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2. The Secretary,
Rural and Water Conservation
Department, Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
3. The Commissioner of Education
Maharashtra State,Pune,
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed,
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Beed,
6. The Head Master,
Virbhadreshwar Primary School,
Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.Sambhaji G.Mundhe, Advocate for Petitioner/s
Mr.AR Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3;
Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, for Resp.Nos. 4 & 5.
-----
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:43:25 :::
2 WP No.10639/2016
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE : 14
th
MARCH,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-R.M.BORDE,J.)
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage.
2) The petitioner is objecting to the notice
issued by the Commissioner of Education, Maharashtra
State, Pune on 23rd May, 2016, calling upon the
petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate action
shall not be taken against him for non-observing the
procedural formalities in respect of his appointment.
It is alleged in the notice that the directives of
the State Government and relevant Regulations have
not been adhered to before issuing the letter of
appointment to the petitioner.
3) Certain deficiencies are pointed out, which
are primarily required to be complied with by the
management and not the petitioner.
4) The petitioner has been appointed as
Shikshan Sevak since 15.6.2011 and his appointment
has been approved by order dated 7.12.2014.
5) The petitioner is presently functioning as
an Assistant Teacher. If at all there are any
violation concerning the appointment of the
petitioner, those are attributable to the management
and not the petitioner. The petitioner has little
explanation to tender in respect of the allegations
levelled in the notice dated 23.5.2016. It has not
been informed as to whether identical show cause
notice has been issued to the management or to the
Education Officer, who is instrumental in approving
the appointment of the petitioner. The notice issued
on 23rd May, 2016 to the petitioner is instance of
non-application of mind to the record and as such,
the said notice deserves to be quashed and set aside
and it is accordingly set aside.
6) The petitioner is making the grievance that
as a result of initiation of the proceeding in
pursuance of the notice dated 23rd May, 2016, he has
not been paid his monthly salary. If the grievance
raised by the petitioner is true, we direct
Respondent No.3 to 6 to release the monthly salary
receivable by the petitioner forthwith.
5) It would be open for the respondents, if
necessary, to conduct probe into the allegations
concerning the appointment of the petitioner and take
appropriate action against those erring officials,
who are responsible for the same.
6) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
