Bombay High Court
Sau. Mary Sudesh Shendre vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ... on 16 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 2043/13 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2043/2013
Sau. Mary Sudesh Shendre,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Hinganghat,
District : Wardha. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
3. Municipal Council, Hinganghat,
through its Chief Officer, Dist. Wardha.
4. The President, Municipal Council,
Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.
5. Smt. L.A. Belekar,
Headmaster, G.B.M.M. High School,
Hinganghat, District: Wardha,
R/o Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
District: Wardha. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
Shri Tejas Deshpande, Advocate holding for Shri F.T. Mirza, counsel for the respondent
no.5.
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 seeks a declaration that
the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Headmistress in
the school run by the municipal council with effect from 14.02.2013.
WP 2043/13 2 Judgment
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on
12.02.1981 and in the year 2007, when the petitioner was eligible to be
promoted to the post of Headmistress, the petitioner informed the
Education Officer and the Municipal Council that the petitioner is not
desirous of being promoted to the post of Headmistress or Assistant
Headmistress, till she retires. In view of the said communication-
undertaking, the municipal council promoted one Shri Zade to the post of
Headmaster in the year 2007. Again, a vacancy in the post of
Headmaster arose in December-2012 and the petitioner wrote to the
municipal council that the petitioner was now fit and was ready to accept
the post of the Headmistress. However, the municipal council did not
consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Headmistress and in stead promoted the respondent no.5 as a
Headmistress. The petitioner has challenged the promotion of the
respondent no.5 and has sought a declaration that the petitioner was
entitled to be promoted.
3. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant
the relief sought by the petitioner. As on this date, the petitioner as well
as the respondent no.5 have retired after attaining the age of
superannuation. We have perused the communication issued by the
petitioner to the municipal council in the year 2007. In the said
communication-undertaking, the petitioner had clearly conveyed to the
WP 2043/13 3 Judgment
education officer and the municipal council that the petitioner should not
be promoted to the post of Headmistress or Assistant Headmistress till her
retirement and she is not willing for promotion while in service. In the
year 2012, when a vacancy again arose, the municipal council by rightly
relying on the communication of the petitioner of the year 2007 refused
to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion. According to the
municipal council, the petitioner had clearly given up her claim to be
promoted for all times to come while she was in service. In any case,
since the petitioner and the respondent no.5 have retired on attaining the
age of superannuation, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be
granted, more so, when the petitioner had given up her right to be
promoted in view of the communication of the year 2007.
4. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, we dismiss the
same with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
