Bombay High Court
Pravin Rambhau Gaikwad Amravati vs The State Of Mah. Mumbai & Others on 30 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
217-J-WP-1280-02 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2002
Vilas s/o Marotrao Rahate
Aged about : 27 years
Occupation: Service
R/o Shendurjana (Khurda)
Tq. Dhamangaon Railway
Dist. Amravati ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Education Officer
(Secondary) Zilla Parishad
Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati
3. Indira Gandhi Smurthi Shikshan Sanstha, Amravati
4. Samta Vidyalay, Amravati (Petition dismissed
against Respdt. Nos.3 & 4 vide
order dated 21/11/2007).
... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1329 OF 2002
Pravin s/o Rambhau Gaikwad
Aged about : 30 years
Occupation: Service
R/o Warha Tq. Tiwasa
Dist. Amravati ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Education Officer
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2017 00:04:02 :::
217-J-WP-1280-02 2/4
(Secondary) Zilla Parishad
Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati
3. Bishmaha Pitamaha
Wamanrao Dada Shikshan Samiti
through its President
R/o Bhaji Bazar Amravati
Tq. & Dist. Amravati
4. Vir Wamanrao Joshi
Vidyalay Through its
Headmistress, R/o Bhaji Bazar
Amravati Tw. & Dist. Amravati ... Respondents.
None for petitioners.
Ms T. Khan and Ms S. Haider, Assistant Government Pleaders for respondent
No.1.
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
Z. A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : May 30, 2017
Oral Judgment : (Per Z. A. Haq, J.)
None appeared for the petitioners on 29/05/2017. The matters were
kept back. Today again when the matters are called out there is no
appearance on behalf of the petitioners.
Heard Ms T. Khan and Ms S. Haider, learned Assistant Government
Pleader in the respective petitions.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that the
communications issued by the Education Officer cancelling the approval
granted to their appointment is illegal.
217-J-WP-1280-02 3/4
3. It is undisputed that after following the prescribed procedure i.e.
obtaining permission to advertise the post, issuing advertisement and
conducting interviews, the petitioners were selected and appointed. It is
undisputed that the appointments of the petitioners were approved by the
Education Officer by communication dated 20/09/2001. The Education
Officer, by the impugned communication cancelled his earlier order by which
approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioners, the cancellation
of approval being on the ground that at the time the petitioners were
appointed, the State Government had imposed a ban on appointments and
therefore the petitioners could not have been appointed.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 have filed reply stating that the decision of the State Government
imposing ban on appointments was not within the knowledge of the
Education Officer when he granted approval and it was brought to his notice
subsequently and therefore the impugned communications were issued.
5. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleaders, we find that
except for the so called ban on appointments at the relevant time, there is
nothing adverse against the petitioners and the respondents have not been
able to point any irregularity or illegality in the appointment of the
217-J-WP-1280-02 4/4
petitioners. This Court while issuing notice on 08/04/2002 passed an
interim order restraining the respondents from terminating the services of
the petitioners and then after the pleadings were complete and after hearing
the parties, Rule came to be issued on 22/07/2002 and by the interim order
the services of the petitioners were protected.
6. Similar issue is dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.1345 of 2002
(Dashrath Gajananrao Bolke vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla
Parishad, Amravati and ors.) and by judgment delivered on 07/01/2016, the
Education Officer is directed to restore his earlier order and grant approval to
the appointment of the petitioner in that case.
7. Considering the facts of the present case and the judgment passed by
this Court in W.P. No.1345/2002, the following order is passed :
(i) The impugned communications dated 21/02/2002 are set aside.
(ii) The Education Officer is directed to restore his earlier order granting
approval to the appointment of the petitioners.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms, in both the petitions. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
