Bombay High Court
Hanumant Irrappa Choudhari And ... vs Ganesh Gopalrao Chavan And Ors on 30 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/6526/2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6526 OF 2008
1. Hanumant Irrappa Choudhari,
Age 42 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Wasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Kanadi Borgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
2. Dattatraya Rajabhau Bidwe,
Age 36 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Wasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Kanadi Borgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
3. Gunwant Sakhkaram Bhure
Age 35 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Wasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Kanadi Borgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Ganesh Gopalrao Chavan,
Age 34 years, Occ. In Charge Head
Master, Wasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Kanadi Borgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
2. Chandrashekhar Dhhuplappa Ghodke,
Age 42 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Wasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Kanadi Borgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
3. Wasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Kanadi Borgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Latur, through the
Head Master.
4. Dnyanodaya Vimukta Jati
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Kanadi Borgaon (Naiknagar),
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2017 01:33:33 :::
WP/6526/2008
2
Tq. and Dist. Latur through its
Secretary.
5. The Special District Welfare
Officer, Latur.
6. The Divisional Social Welfare
Officer, Latur Division, Latur.
7. The Director of Social Welfare,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
8. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri D.A.Mane h/f Shri Milind Patil
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri S.R.Shirsat
h/f Shri S.S.Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri V.B.Jadhav h/f Shri A.N.Irpatgire
AGP for Respondents 5 to 8 : Smt. V.S.Choudhary
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated: November 30, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):-
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the selection and
appointment of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is strenuously contended
that their appointments were illegal and the advertisement
published was held to be illegal by the competent department.
2. While admitting this petition on 22.2.2010, this Court has
refused interim relief to the petitioners.
WP/6526/2008
3. The strenuous contention of the petitioners is that though
they were working in the Primary School, which is 100% grant-in-
aid from 1994-95, an advertisement was published on 27.5.2004
seeking to make fresh appointments in the Secondary School, which
was on no grant basis. Though the petitioners were eligible and
qualified to be appointed as Teachers in the Secondary School,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 were appointed. A communication dated
15.6.2004, issued by the Special District Social Welfare Officer,
Latur addressed to the Secretary of the Educational Institution is
pointed out to indicate that the said authority has declared the
interviews held on 15.6.2004 as being illegal. We find that the said
letter has been issued on the date when the interviews were
scheduled.
4. A further communication dated 22.5.2006 is pointed out to
contend that the interviews held on 15.6.2004 were set aside by the
Special District Social Welfare Officer, which is after two years from
the date of appointment of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. We find that the following factors are of significance while
deciding this case:-
WP/6526/2008
(a) Pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.5.2004, these
petitioners did not apply for seeking appointments as
Teachers in the Secondary School, which was no grant basis.
(b) It is apparent that the petitioners may not have applied
since the Secondary School was started on 'no grant basis'
and the petitioners were permanent employees in the Primary
School, which was on 100% grant in aid.
(c) This petition has been filed on 8.8.2008, which is after
four years of the appointment of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
(d) This Court has refused interim relief to these
petitioners and the appointments of respondent Nos.1 and 2
have not been made subject to the result of this petition.
(e) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been working for
practically 14 academic years beginning from 2004-05.
6. We are, therefore, of the view that when the petitioners had
an opportunity to apply for the fresh selection process meant for
recruiting teachers in the Secondary School, they have refrained
from doing so, apparently because the said school was on 'no grants'
WP/6526/2008
basis. After the Secondary School was granted aid by the
Government, the petitioners may have developed an interest. It also
cannot be over looked that the process undertaken by the society
was for recruiting fresh teachers in the Secondary School and it was
not a promotional avenue, which would have created any right in
these petitioners.
7. Considering the effect of the above factors and keeping in
view that these respondents have now been confirmed in
employment and respondent No.1 has also been promoted as the
Head Master, being the senior most teacher, from 2009, we do not
find that this petition could be entertained.
8. As such, this petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
