Bhausaheb Pandharinath Dongare vs The State Of Mah & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9009 Bom

                                                              W.P. No.3633/2006
                                      (( 1 ))

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO.3633 OF 2006



 Bhausaheb s/o Pandharinath Dongare
 Age 31 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o at present Eknathwadi
 Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar                 ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through Government Pleader,
          High Court, Bench at Aurangabad
          through its Secretary,
          Education Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai

 2.       The Director,
          Social Welfare, Pune - 1

 3.       The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
          Aurangabad

 4.       The Social Welfare Officer,
          Nanded, District Nanded

 5.       The Secretary,
          Swargiya Rajiv Gandhi Niwasi
          Apang Vidyalaya, Gokunda,
          Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded

 6.       The Head Master,
          Swargiya Rajiv Gandhi Niwasi
          Apang Vidyalaya, Gokunda,
          Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded
                                      ...       RESPONDENTS

                                 .....
 Shri D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for State
 Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent No.4
                                 .....




::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 01:11:12 :::
                                                                   W.P. No.3633/2006
                                        (( 2 ))

                               CORAM:         RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
                                              SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the show-cause-notice

dated 21.12.2005, vide which, the Divisional Social Welfare

Officer, has raised certain objections, pertaining to the proposal

of the petitioner for undertaking the postal D.Ed. course. The

petitioner has approached this Court on 21.2.2006 for

challenging the said notice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who had sought

an adjournment on 10.11.2017, for collecting instructions,

submits, on the basis of the information supplied to him by the

petitioner, that the concerned Swargawasi Rajiv Gandhi Niwasi

Apang Vidyalaya, Gokunda, lost its its permission to operate the

said school in 2005. The entire staff was discharged. In 2009,

the school was again granted permission. The petitioner has

completed the course of a Craft Teacher, and claims to have

been appointed as a Craft Teacher on 12.3.1996. Due to the

closure of the school, he was disengaged on 21.12.2005. The

petitioner, therefore, could not complete his postal D.Ed. till date,

and is out of employment ever since he has been removed.

3. Since this petition has been admitted by order dated

W.P. No.3633/2006 (( 3 ))

12.1.2007, by which the respondent No.4 Department was

restrained from causing recovery against the petitioner, we have

solicited information from the litigating sides with regard to the

services of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not completed

his postal D.Ed., as he is out of employment from December

2005, we find that, these disputed issues cannot be gone into by

this Court in the absence of the petitioner having acquired the

qualification of D.Ed.

4. The impugned notice dated 21.12.2005, in fact, calls

upon the petitioner to explain as to why his admission to the

postal D.Ed. course should not be cancelled considering the

objections. It is recorded in our order dated 12.1.2007 that, the

Jagtap Committee was formed, so as to investigate the alleged

irregularities and the complaints with regard to the admission of

candidates to the postal D.Ed. course.

5. As such, we find it appropriate to permit the

petitioner to submit his detailed explanation to the impugned

notice and submit necessary documents in order to convince

respondent No.3 that his admission to the postal D.Ed. course

was pursuant to following the due procedure.

6. Since we find that, even if, for the sake of

assumption, the petitioner is held by respondent No.3 to be

eligible for getting admission to the postal D.Ed. course, the

W.P. No.3633/2006 (( 4 ))

hurdle in the petitioner's path would be that he is removed from

service on 21.12.2005, thereby disentitling him to seek

admission to the postal D.Ed. course.

7. Nevertheless, we, therefore, find it appropriate to

leave this issue open to be considered by the appropriate

authorities as per the prevailing policies. In the event the

petitioner desires to challenge his illegal termination, the doors of

the Court cannot be closed for him and hence, the time spent by

the petitioner in this Court from 21.2.2006 till the passing of this

order, shall be a good ground for seeking condonation of delay,

in the event he challenges his termination.

8. With the above observations, this petition is disposed

of.

9. Rule is discharged.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )               ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
               JUDGE                               JUDGE




 fmp/