Bombay High Court
Shenphadu Waman Patil And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 September, 2017
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(1) WP No. 2191/06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2189 OF 2006
1. Shenphadu s/o Waman Patil ()
Age : 44 yrs, occu.: service ()
Head Master, Primary Ashram ()
School, Nagaon Hill, Dhule ()
District Dhule. ()
2. Kailas s/o Gangaram Borse ()
Age : 41 yrs, occu.: service ()
Head Master, Primary Ashram ()
School, Kundane, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. () Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ()
Through its Secretary ()
Social Welfare Department, ()
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ()
2. The Director of Social Welfare ()
Maharashtra State, Pune. ()
3. The Special District Social ()
Welfare Officer, Dhule () Respondents.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 01:40:44 :::
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(2) WP No. 2191/06
WRIT PETITION NO. 2190 OF 2006
1. Chandrakant Bhaidas Nikumbhe ()
Age : 37 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Navalnagar, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
2. Chudaman s/o Tulsiram Patil ()
Age : 40 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Morane, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
3. Smt. Manisha Raghunath Patil ()
Age : 36 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Kondane, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
4. Smt. Mangala Vinayak Patil ()
Age : 40 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Warshi, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. () Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ()
Through its Secretary ()
Social Welfare Department, ()
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ()
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 01:40:44 :::
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(3) WP No. 2191/06
2. The Director of Social Welfare ()
Maharashtra State, Pune. ()
3. The Special District Social ()
Welfare Officer, Dhule () Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2191 OF 2006
1. Umarao s/o Onkar Bhadane ()
Age : 40 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Secondary ()
Ashram School, Sakri, Taluka ()
Sakri, District Dhule. ()
2. Dilip s/o Chiman Bhalerao ()
Age : 44 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Chitod, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
3. Murlidhar s/o Raghunath Patil ()
Age : 37 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Chitod, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
4. Rajendra s/o Himmatrao Bhamre ()
Age : 37 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Navalnagar, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 01:40:44 :::
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(4) WP No. 2191/06
5. Subhash s/o Uttamrao Patil ()
Age : 39 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Sondle, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
6. Dilip s/o Vasant Magle ()
Age : 41 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary Ashram ()
School, Nagaon Hill, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
7. Shrikant s/o Tongal Tele ()
Age : 37 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Secondary ()
Ashram School, Sondre, Taluka ()
and District Dhule. ()
8. Sanjay s/o Khushal Gaikwad ()
Age : 36 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Secondary ()
Ashram School, Sakri, Taluka and ()
District Dhule. ()
9. Madhukar s/o Kautik Khairnar ()
Age : 41 yrs, occu.: service ()
Assistant Teacher, Primary ()
Ashram School, Morana, Taluka ()
and District Dhule. () Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ()
Through its Secretary ()
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 01:40:44 :::
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(5) WP No. 2191/06
Social Welfare Department, ()
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ()
2. The Director of Social Welfare ()
Maharashtra State, Pune. ()
3. The Special District Social ()
Welfare Officer, Dhule () Respondents.
***
Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners in all petitions.
Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for the respondents.
***
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated : 01-09-2017.
***
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D. DHANUKA, J.) :-
1. By consent of the parties all the three Writ Petitions
were heard together and are being disposed of by the common
order, in view of the fact that the facts and issue involved in all
the three petitions are identical.
2. We are, however, summarising the facts in Writ
Petition No. 2189 of 2006.
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(6) WP No. 2191/06
3. Petitioner No.1 was appointed on 01.07.1988 as an
Assistant Teacher. Petitioner No.2 was appointed on 01.11.1993
as an Assistant Teacher. Petitioner No.1 was promoted to the
post of Headmaster in the year 1993. Petitioner No.2 was
promoted to the post of Headmaster in the year 1998. Both the
petitioners were selected by duly constituted Selection
Committee initially as the Assistant Teachers and thereafter were
promoted to the post of Headmaster. Both the petitioners have
passed B.A., B.Ed. on the date of their appointment as Assistant
Teachers with the respondents. On 03.06.1999 the State
Government passed a Resolution and framed Scheme for
Ashram Schools recognised by Social Welfare Department. In
the said Scheme, the qualification of B.Ed. was recognised as
training qualification in respect of the teachers who were
teaching 5 to 7 Standard of the primary Ashram School.
4. On 21.04.2004 the State Government issued a
Circular to the effect that the Graduate teachers, who were
teaching in the Primary School on the date of the said Circular,
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(7) WP No. 2191/06
would be treated as untrained teachers. Based on the said
Circular issued by the State Government, a notice came to be
issued on 15.12.2005 by the Social Welfare Officer for giving
effect to the said Circular dated 21.04.2004. The petitioners,
thus, filed these Writ Petitions thereby praying for writ of
certiorari and for quashing and setting aside the Circular dated
21.04.2004 issued by respondent No. 3 and consequential order
passed by respondent No.3 on 15.12.2005 and for writ of
mandamus, thereby praying for order and directions against the
respondents to pay salary to each of the petitioner in the pay-
scale of Rs. 5500 to 9000/-.
5. Mr. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioners in
all these petitions invited our attention to the impugned Circular
dated 21.04.2004 and also to the impugned communication
dated 15.12.2005 issued by respondent No.3. He also invited
our attention to the order and judgment delivered by this Court
on 06.05.2004 in Writ Petition No. 4632/1999 in case of
Tukaram Trimbak Chaudhari Versus of State of Maharashtra
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(8) WP No. 2191/06
and others and in other companion matters. He submits that in
the said group of petitions, the petitioners have impugned the
similar circular issued by the Government in respect of Ashram
School recognised by the Tribal Development Department. He
submits that by the said order and judgment delivered by this
Court, this Court was pleased to set aside the impugned orders
passed in the said group of writ petitions and holding that all
such teachers, who were appointed and who were possessing
Graduate qualification with B.A., B.Sc. and also B.Ed. were
entitled to be considered as trained teachers and thereby
continued to be paid salary as trainer teachers.
6. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra
and others Versus Tukaram Trimbak Chaudhari, (2007 AIR
SCW 1321), thereby dismissing Civil Appeal No. 863/2007 filed
by the State of Maharashtra against the said order and judgment
of this Court delivered in the case of Tukaram Trimbak
Chaudhari in Writ Petition No. 4632/1999 and in other
companion matters.
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(9) WP No. 2191/06
7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the
judgment of this Court, which is upheld by the Supreme Court,
squarely applies to the facts of this case and is binding on the
parties as well as this Court.
8. Mr. Kagne, the learned A.G.P. is not in a position to
distinguish the judgment of this Court and of the Supreme
Court.
9. We have minutely perused the order and judgment
delivered by this Court in the case of Tukaram Trimbak
Chaudhari Versus State of Maharashtra (supra), and the order
passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition filed by
the State of Maharashtra against the decision of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 4632/1999 and other companion petitions. We
are of the view that the identical Circular issued by the State
Government in respect of the Ashram Schools recognised by
Tribal Development Department has been quashed and set aside
by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, would squarely
WP No. 2189/06, WP No.2190/06 &
(10) WP No. 2191/06
apply to the facts of this case. We are bound by the said
judgment of this Court and also the judgment of the Supreme
Court.
10. We, therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Writ Petition Nos. 2189/2006, 2190/2006 and
2191/2006 are made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (B) and (C).
2. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
3. Respondents are directed to act on the
authentic copy of this order.
4. No order as to costs.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( R.D. DHANUKA)
JUDGE JUDGE
***
vdd/
