Rajendra Santaram Kale vs State Of Maha & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8265 Bom

                                                 *1*                 902wp1261&1267o04con


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 1261 OF 2004
                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO.1267 OF 2004 

Shri Devidas Kisan Bankar,
Age : 30 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Sillod, District Aurangabad.
                               ...in WP/1261/2004.
Rajendra Santaram Kale,
Age : 30 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Chitegaon, Tq.Paithan,
District Aurangabad.
                               ...in WP/1267/2004.
                                                ....PETITIONERS
       -VERSUS-

1         The State of Maharashtra.
          Through its Secretary,
          Education Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2         The Deputy Director of Education,
          Maharashtra State Education Research
          and Training Council, Pune-30.
3         The Principal,
          District Institute of Education and
          Training (DIET),
          Vaijapur, District Aurangabad.
                                                 ....RESPONDENTS
                                          ...
                 Advocate for the Petitioners : Smt.Asha S. Rasal. 
                   AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Y.G.Gujrathi.
                                          ...

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

DATE :- 31st October, 2017

*2* 902wp1261&1267o04con

Oral Judgment :

1 In both these petitions, the Petitioners pray for quashing of

the letter dated 25.11.2003 issued by Respondent No.2/ Deputy Director,

by which, the admissions of these Petitioners to the Postal D.Ed. Course

for the academic year 2000-2001 has been cancelled after these

Petitioners have cleared their first year and were appearing for few

subjects in which they had failed.

2 This Court had heard the litigating sides on 20.07.2004 and

had directed the Principal of District Education and Training Institute to

accept the examination forms of the Petitioners and permit them to appear

for the examination. It is informed that pursuant to the interim orders of

this Court, the Petitioners have completed their D.Ed. course and have

been awarded their Diploma Certificates. They have settled in

employment in the last 13 years.

3 The learned AGP, while opposing the petitions, has pointed

out the conditions introduced by the State Government vide the

Government Resolution dated 02.06.2000, which have been reproduced

by this Court in it's judgment dated 07.12.2010 in Writ Petition Nos.610

and 258 of 2006 (Uddhav Bapurao Baswade vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others). He specifically points out the seven conditions that have been

reproduced in paragraph 3 of the said judgment. We find it apposite to

reproduce the said seven conditions as under:-

                                                      *3*                   902wp1261&1267o04con


     "1]        The school should be recognized.
     2]         The post which is held by the primary teacher should  

be sanctioned as per the criteria of strength of students.

3] The teacher appointed should not be a surplus teacher and he should have been appointed in regular scale as a full time teacher.

4] There should not be any break in service of the concerned teacher.

5] The appointment should be as per the roster points. 6] The proposal for approval of appointment of the concerned teacher should have been submitted by the institution to the concerned regional officer at least once fore 5th November, 1997.

7] On the date of appointment, the concerned teacher should have the requisite qualification for admission to the D.Ed. Course."

4 The learned AGP, therefore, submits that the Petitioners who

had acquired education till 10th standard in Marathi medium, could not

have been granted admission to the D.Ed. course for English medium. He

further submits that excess teachers were appointed by the Educational

Institution and these Petitioners have been granted admission to the Postal

D.Ed. course in an irregular manner. He, therefore, contends that this

irregularity which would amount to an illegality, cannot be ignored by this

Court.

5 The learned Advocate for the Petitioners places reliance upon

the judgment of this Court dated 14.01.2004 delivered in Writ Petition

Nos.5718, 5719 of 2003 and 70 of 2004 (Kailas Hanumant Kunde vs. The

State of Maharashtra and others) to support the contention that identically

*4* 902wp1261&1267o04con

placed Petitioners have been permitted to complete the Postal D.Ed.

course and this Court has not caused any interference in the said cases.

6 It is pointed out that the State had formed an enquiry

committee and it was noticed in the enquiry that the candidates like these

Petitioners had been granted admission to D.Ed. course in an irregular

manner. It is based on the said Committee's report that these Petitioners

were issued the impugned letters thereby, cancelling their admissions to

the D.Ed. course.

7 The learned Advocate points out that these two Petitioners

are amongst 308 persons whom the Enquiry Committee has blamed for

having acquired admission to the Postal D.Ed. course de-hors the rules and

the criteria laid down. Our attention is drawn to paragraphs 3, 3 (which

should be 4) and 4 of the judgment dated 14.01.2004 when identical

petitions were considered by this Court and the circular dated 28.08.2001

was held to be operable prospectively. It is, therefore, canvassed that as

the cases of these Petitioners are identical to the cases of those Petitioners,

who were handed down the judgment dated 14.01.2004, these petitions

can be allowed.

8 We find that after the Enquiry Committee has given it's

findings pursuant to an enquiry, 308 persons were held to be ineligible for

the Postal D.Ed. course. Few of them were before this Court in those Writ

Petitions which have been allowed by the judgment dated 14.01.2004. It

*5* 902wp1261&1267o04con

would be apposite to reproduce the conclusions of this Court in paragraph

4 of the said judgment as under:-

"4. The short question that falls for adjudication is, as to whether could the Government decision contained in the circular dated 28th August, 2001, could be operated retrospectively and the answer thereto, has to be an emphatic no. As per the qualifications and eligibility criteria prevalent in the year 2000, the petitioners had sought admission to postal D.Ed. course and were legally admitted. Any subsequent change in the eligibility criteria cannot in any manner adversely affect the admission granted to the petitioners to the said course."

9 Considering the above, it is apparent that this Court has taken

a view that the circular dated 28.08.2001 by which, certain conditions

were introduced while admitting the students to the Postal D.Ed. Course,

was held to be operable prospectively and this Court has concluded that

there cannot be a retrospective application of the circular to those

candidates who were admitted to the Postal D.Ed. Course in the academic

year 2000-2001. We, therefore, do not find any such circumstance which

could convince us to take a different view in this matter.

10 Considering the above, these Writ Petitions stand allowed.

The impugned letters dated 25.11.2003 stand quashed and set aside. Rule

is made absolute accordingly.

kps (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)