Shri. Ajay Jamipalsing Gaur vs The Education Officer (Sec), Zill ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 785 Bom

WP  1423/13                                          1                          Judgment

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

                       WRIT PETITION No. 1423/2013

Shri Ajay Jamipalsing Gaur,
Aged - 57 Years, Occupation- Service,
Headmaster, New Matatoli Municipal
Council High School, Gondia.                                                     PETITIONER

                                      .....VERSUS.....

1.    The Education Officer (Sec.),
      Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
2.    The Chief Officer,
      Municipal Council, Gondia.

3.    Shri M.D. Pande.                      (DISMISSED)

4.    Shri Sayyed Abdul Wahad).             (DISMISSED)                    RESPONDENTS



                    Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner.
        Ms T.H. Udeshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
                            None for the respondent no.2.


                                       CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                     V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.           

DATE : 16 TH MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of his

reversion, dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal

Council, Gondia. The petitioner has sought a direction against the

respondent-Education Officer to grant approval to the promotion of the

petitioner as a Headmaster with effect from 05.03.2011.

WP 1423/13 2 Judgment

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on

24.08.1979 from the open category. The petitioner claimed to belong to

the scheduled tribes and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to

the scrutiny committee for verification. The scrutiny committee

invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was

promoted to the post of an Assistant Headmaster from the open category

and thereafter as a Headmaster. It is the case of the petitioner that the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster from the open

category and therefore the respondent-Municipal Council could not have

reverted the petitioner on the basis of the order of the scrutiny

committee. According to the petitioner, the Education Officer ought to

have granted approval to the promotion of the petitioner on the post of

Headmaster as the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster

from the open category and not from the reserved category.

3. Ms Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent no.1 has opposed the prayers made in the

petition. It is submitted that there was no vacancy in the post of

headmaster from the open category when the petitioner was promoted on

the said post in the year 2012. It is stated that there were five posts of

Headmasters in the schools run by the respondent no.2 and out of the

five posts, two posts were filled from the open category. It is stated that

there was a backlog in the post of the Headmaster in Scheduled Castes

WP 1423/13 3 Judgment

category and, hence, the petitioner could not have been appointed in the

open category. It is stated that the Education Officer rightly rejected the

proposal for grant of approval to the promotion of the petitioner as a

Headmaster from the open category. The learned Assistant Government

Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that

the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the circumstances

of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out

as to how many posts of Headmasters were filled at the relevant time in

the year 2012 by the assistant teachers belonging to the open category. It

is not pointed out as to how the petitioner could have been promoted

from the open category as a Headmaster on the basis of his seniority

when there was a backlog in the scheduled castes category. In the

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Education Officer, it is clearly

pointed out that there was a backlog in the scheduled castes category

when the petitioner was promoted as a Headmaster in the year 2012

from the open category. As the claim of the petitioner of belonging to the

scheduled tribes was invalidated by the scrutiny committee and the

petitioner had not challenged the said decision, the petitioner could not

have been promoted to a post, that was meant for the reserved category.

The Education Officer, therefore, rightly did not grant approval to the

promotion of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster and the municipal

WP 1423/13 4 Judgment

council rightly reverted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Headmaster

on which he was promoted from the open category. The claim of the

petitioner that the respondent nos.3 and 4 were juniors to the petitioner

and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been reverted and they

should have been reverted, cannot be considered as the writ petition is

dismissed against the respondent nos.3 and 4 and the order of dismissal

of the petition against the said respondents has attained finality. In the

absence of necessary parties, the said issue cannot be decided. Moreover,

the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the

year 2013 and there is no question of placing the petitioner in the post of

Headmaster at this stage.

5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no

order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                          JUDGE

APTE