Dattatraya Uttam Narawade & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8935 Bom

RNG                                     1/8                                202

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        WRIT PETITION NO.967 OF 2003

      1. Santosh Tukaram Amble                     }
      2. Santosh Baburao Talole
      3. Sandip Pandurang Saste
      4. Kailas Shankarrao Daundkar                }
      5.Smt Rohini Pandurang Daundkar
      6.Bhaskar Ishwar Thorat
      7.Smt Pushpalata Suresh Thorat 
      8.Smt Shashikala Bhiwaji Bombe                }
      9.Smt Chayabai Daulatrao Gagare
      10.Smt Anjali Deepak Kanhere
      11.Kum.Deepika Balkrushna Kedari
      12.Kum Shilpa Vijay Thorat                    }
      13.Kum.Shamla Shankar Pandit
      14.Jaising Kisan Ukirade
      15.Smt Indubai Dilip Thikekar
      16.Baidabai Khandu Manjare
      17.Smt Pratiksha Ashok Kunjir               }
      18.Smt Archana Subhash Hande
      19.Smt Pushpa Shankar Gaikwad
      20.Kum.Kanchan Hiraman Darekar
      21.Kum.Jagdevi Vireshappa Dombe
      22.Sunil Rambhau Ghodekar                   }
      23.Lakshiputra Sharnappa Auti
      24.Popat Babanrao Ingawale
      25.Smt Vijaya Kisan Tore
      26.Devaram Bhimaji Bhor
      27.Ms.Savita Karpe                          }
      28.Smt.Mukta Hagannath Katake
      29.Sunil Vithal Phand
      30.Smt Sujata Marutirao Kavale              } .. Petitioners 
                    vs
      The State of Maharashtra & ors                  .. Respondents 



         ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:27:52 :::
 RNG                                     2/8                             202

                                    with
                       WRIT PETITION NO.968 OF 2003
      1. Dattatraya Uttam Narawade               }
      2. Sunil Vithal Choudhary
      3. Prakash Baburao Khetre
      4.Vijay Dattatray Geete
      5.Smt Mandakini Sadashiv Tikekar          }
      6.Ajay Bhagwan Shinde
      7.Smt Jyoti Veerkumar Hirawe
      8.Hirabhau Yeshwant Chavan
      9.Milind Vasant Jagtap                    }
      10.Subhash Dnyandev Bhanusaghare
      11.Tushar Savkar Shinde
      12.Pallavi Shriram Kulkarni
      13.Jyoti Vithal Dhamale
      14.Smt.Sunita Kisan Sarode                 }
      15.Smt Scheta Shamuvel Kadam
      16.Rahul Dnyandev Dhamal
      17.Smt Madhuri Bansi Shirke
      18.Dadasaheb Anata Jagdale
      19.Stm Aarati Shamrao Salunkhe             }
      20.Smt Sunita Govind Chorghe
      21.Mahadev Tukaram Amble
      22.Santosh Dashratgh Kute
      23.Dattaram Shahaji Khedkar                }
      24.Shankar Ramdas Gade
      25. Smt.Suvarna Tukaram Langhe
      26.Ashok Bhimrao Ambale                    }
      27.Rahul Nandkumar Hirave
      28.Smt Savita Dattatraya Kharade
      29.Hanumant Gyanoba Shendkar                {
      30.Smt Meera Ramchandra Khedekar
      31.Miss Savita S.Oturkar                  ..  Petitioners
                  vs

      1.The State of Maharashtra & ors                     .. Respondents



         ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017           ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:27:52 :::
 RNG                                     3/8                                   202


                                    with
                        WRIT PETITION NO.4689 OF 2003

      1.Bharati Bandopant Deshmukh                }
      2. Surekha Vilas Garud                    }
      3. Manda Radhakisan Darandale
      4. Muktabai Ramchandra Uttekar
      5.  Babitai Bajirao Kunjir
      6. Sunita Sakharam Bankar                   }
      7. Jyoti Namdeo Dongre
      8. Chaya S.Kolhe
      9. Vilas Ananda Gholap                      } .. Petitioners
                          vs

      State of Maharashtra & ors                        .. Respondents

                               with
                       WRIT PETITION NO.4697 OF 2003

      1. Balasaheb Jagannath Bhadale                      }
      2. Raosaheb Babasaheb Ghorpade
      3. Anuradha Dnyandeo Deshmukh
      4. Priyatama Dadabhau Dasgude                       }
      5. Shankar Somaji Pawar
      6. Santosh Sopan Jadhav                           ..  Petitioners
                     vs

      State of Maharashtra & ors                     .. Respondents
                             ..

Mr.Suresh S.Pakale for Petitioners Mr.A.P.Vanarase Assistant Government Pleader for State Mr.S.J.Rairkar for Respondent nos.2,4 and 5.

                             Coram  :    SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
                                           RIYAZ I.CHAGLA, JJ
                             Date     :    9th NOVEMBER 2017








      ORAL JUDGMENT

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

The petitioners in these writ petitions had applied for appointment for the posts of shikshan sevaks as per the scheme of the year 2000. The petitioners were selected and their names were included in the select list. Since the respondent- Zilla Parishad did not appoint the petitioners on the posts of shikshan sevaks despite their selection, the petitioners, had filed the writ petitions seeking a direction against the Zilla Parishad to appoint them on the post of shikshan sevaks. These writ petitions came up for admission before this Court on 28.4.2003 and this Court had, while issuing rule, passed the following order :

"Rule. To be heard along with Writ Petition No.2940 of 2000 and companion matters.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on interim relief.

3. In view of the fact that the petitioners are already selected, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice that they be appointed subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions as also subject to further orders. It is also clarified that the said appointments would be temporary and will not confer any right in

favour of the petitioners who would be appointed nor will create any equity in favour of them. The said fact also may be mentioned in the appointment orders.

4. In view of the above order, our earlier orders stand modified. It is also open to the Zilla Parishad to appoint other persons after the petitioners are given appointment orders."

In pursuance of the interim order, the petitioners were appointed by the Zilla Parishad in the year 2003 and the petitioners continue to work with the Zilla parishad as Assistant teachers since then.

In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioners have sought a direction against the respondent-Zilla Parishad to continue them in service as they are appointed more than 14 years earlier. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that grave and irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners, if their services are terminated.

Mr.Rairkar, the learned counsel for Zilla Parishad has opposed the prayers made in the petition. It is submitted that this Court may not consider the case of the petitioners favourably as it was clarified by this Court by the order dated 28.4.2003 that the appointment granted to the petitioners in terms of the interim order would be temporary and would not confer any right in favour of the petitioners nor would the appointment of the petitioners during the

pendency of the petition create any equity in favour of them. It is stated that it is apparent from the interim order dated 28.4.2003 that this Court did not intend to continue the petitioners in service if the petitioners would fail ultimately on merits. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the petitioners were appointed in terms of the interim order, there was a backlog in the reserved categories and since the petitioners belong to the open category, the services of the petitioners cannot be protected.It is however, not disputed by the learned counsel that the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications that are required to be possessed by an Assistant Teacher.

In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to continue the petitioners in service in view of the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners, directing the respondent-Zilla Parishad to appoint the petitioners on the post of shikshan sevaks. The petitioners are duly qualified to hold the post of Assistant Teachers and in terms of our interim order, they were appointed in May, 2004. The statement made on behalf of the respondent-Zilla Parishad that the petitioners belong to the open category and at the relevant time there was a back log in the reserved categories is disputed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, we do not wish to adjudicate on the said issue as the petitioners are continuously and satisfactorily working as Assistant teachers with the respondent-Zilla

Parishad for more than 14 years and they are duly qualified to hold the posts. It would not be proper to consider the petitions on merits when the petitioners have worked on the posts of Assistant Teachers for a period of 14 years. Though this Court had while granting interim relief, made it clear that the appointment orders would not confer any right in favour of the petitioners and they would not be entitled to claim any equity in their favour in the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to direct the respondent-Zilla Parishad to continue the petitioners in service. Although this Court had directed that this petition be heard with certain other petitions, which according to the parties were filed on similar lines, we find on a reading of the orders in the said petitions that in those petitions, the individuals had not filed petitions seeking their appointment on the basis of the shikshan sevak scheme but the associations of teachers had filed the same challenging the shikshan sevak scheme. Hence, in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to dispose of the writ petitions by directing the Zilla Parishad to continue the petitioners in service.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioners in service as if their appointment were regularly made in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J) (SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J)

(corrected version of judgment dated 9.11.2017 pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated 22.11.2017