Bombay High Court
Sow. Vimal Sudhakarrao Deshpande vs The State Of Mah. & Ors on 1 September, 2017
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
(1) WP No. 2359/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2359 OF 2002
Vimal Sudhkarrao Deshpande ()
Age : 60 years, occu. : retired teacher ()
R/o 'Manas', Gandhi Chowk, Double ()
Gin Road, Kaluka Devi Mandir ()
Old Jalna, Taluka & District Jalna () Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ()
2. The Deputy Director of ()
Education, Aurangabad Divn., ()
Aurangabad.
3. District Education Officer ()
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, ()
Jalna.
4. Head Mistress, ()
Dankunwar Hindi Kanya ()
Vidyalaya, Opposite Mission ()
Hospital, Durgamata Road, ()
Jalna.
(Copy for respondent Nos.1 to 3 served
on Government Pleader, Bombay High
Court, Bench at Aurangabad)
5 Shakuntalabai w/o Asaram Dhake ()
Age : 52 years, occu.:- Teacher ()
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 01:42:14 :::
(2) WP No. 2359/2002
Smt. Dankunwar Hindi Kanya ()
Vidyalaya, Opposite Mission ()
Hospital, Durga Mata Road, ()
Taluka and District Jalna.
6. Vasudha Vasantrao Ghoufule ()
Age : 56 years, occu.: Teacher ()
Smt. Dankunwar Hindi Kanya ()
Vidyalaya, Opposite Mission ()
Hospital, Durga Mata Road, ()
Taluka and District Jalna. Respondents.
***
Mr. V.M. Mane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi, A.G.P for the State.
***
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated : 01-09-2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D. DHANUKA, J) :-
1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks order and direction
against respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Deputy Director of
Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and District
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna respectively to
grant and sanction the Selection Grade to the petitioner as on
01.01.1998 onwards and seeks further order and direction
(3) WP No. 2359/2002
against the School (respondent No.4) to carry out an order
issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that the petitioner be
granted Selection Grade on 01.01.1998 onwards i.e. Rs. 5500 to
9000/-.
2. All the respondents are served. None appeared for
respondent Nos.3 and 4. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by any of
the respondents.
3. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition
are as under.
4. The petitioner had passed her Higher Secondary
Certificate Examination in the year 1959 and was placed in the
Second Division. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in the respondent No.4 School on 11.06.1969. The
petitioner also completed thereafter D.Ed. Course in the year
1974. It is the case of the petitioner that she attended 21 days
training in service as per the Government Scheme and obtained
(4) WP No. 2359/2002
certificate of training in the month of May 1994. A copy of the
said certificate is annexed at Exhibit-D to the petition.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
already granted higher pay scale as per Chattopadhya
recommendations and was getting pay scale Rs. 1400 to 2600/-.
6. On 02.09.1989 the State Government issued
Government Resolution. It was provided in the said Resolution
that the provision for Selection Grade was provided to the
suitable teachers to the extent of 20 % in the institution. It is
the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had fulfilled all the
conditions given in the said Government Resolution and was
eligible to be granted Selection Grade since 01.01.1998.
7. The petitioner made representations to the
respondents on 28.04.2000 and 29.05.2000. On 30.04.2000 the
petitioner retired at the age of superannuation. On 21.07.2001
respondent No.4 informed the petitioner the decision of
(5) WP No. 2359/2002
respondent No.3 rejecting the representation of the petitioner,
on the ground that the petitioner was not having higher degree
and was not eligible to be granted Selection Grade under the
said Government Resolution dated 02.09.1989. The petitioner,
thus, filed this Writ Petition for the various reliefs.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our
attention to the annexures to the petition including the
certificate granted by S.S.C. Examination Board in favour of the
petitioner for passing Higher Secondary Certificate Examination
held in the month of March 1959. The petitioner was appointed
on 11.06.1969. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
under the said Government Resolution dated 02.09.1989 and
more particularly under Clause 9 (2), the employees who had
completed the age of 12 years in service, were required to
submit the degree of higher education for the purpose of
conferring higher Selection Grade. He invited our attention to
sub-clause (4) of Clause-9 of the said Government Resolution
and would submit that since the petitioner had completed 18
years of service as on 01.01.1998, the petitioner was not liable
(6) WP No. 2359/2002
to produce any higher degree certificate for the purpose of
availing the Selection Grade under the said Government
Resolution. He submits that the petitioner was exempted from
passing such higher degree certificate for the purpose of availing
of Selection Grade.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our
attention to the letter dated 21.07.2001 from the Management
conveying the decision of respondent No.3 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner
did not have higher degree certificate. He submits that the said
decision of respondent No.3 is ex-facie contrary to and in
violation of condition No.9 (2) read with sub-clause (4) of the
said Government Resolution.
10. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner
had already completed more than 18 years of service as on
01.01.1998. In our view, the petitioner was thus not liable to
pass any higher degree examination for the purpose of availing
higher Selection Grade under the said Government Resolution
(7) WP No. 2359/2002
dated 02.09.1989. The petitioner had made representation to
the respondents bringing these facts on record. However, a
perusal of letter dated 21.07.2001 addressed by the School
Management to the petitioner thereby conveying the decision of
respondent No.2, indicates that respondent No. 3 has not
considered the provisions of Clause9 (2) & (4) of the said
Government Resolution while rejecting the representation made
by the petitioner. In our view, the order passed by respondent
No.3 is thus ex-facie illegal and contrary to the conditions
granting specific exemption to those employees who had
completed 18 years of service as on 01.01.1998 from passing
any higher degree examination. In our view, the petitioner had
fulfilled those requirements described under the said
Government Resolution and thus was entitled to be granted
higher Selection Grade in terms of the said Government
Resolution. The order passed by respondent No.3, in our view, is
thus illegal and contrary to the said Government Resolution and
thus deserves to be set aside.
11. We, therefore, pass the following order.
(8) WP No. 2359/2002
ORDER
1. Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (C) and (D).
2. The order passed by this Court shall be
within 4 weeks from today.
3. Respondent No.4 shall comply with the order
weeks from the date of communication of the
order of respondent Nos.2 and 3, without fail.
4. The parties are directed to rely on the
authentic copy of this order.
5. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
6. No order as to costs.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( R.D. DHANUKA)
JUDGE JUDGE
***
vdd/
