Bombay High Court
Vinod S/O Vasantrao Rathod And ... vs The Education Officer ... on 14 September, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1066/2017
1. Vinod s/o Vasantrao Rathod,
Aged about : 38 years;
Occupation : Service,
R/o Kanta Nagar,
Near Khamgaon Bank,
Amravati.
2. Ku. Sonali d/o Diwakar Vagare,
Aged about : 33 years,
Occupation : Service;
R/o Asiad Colony,
Shegaon Naka, Near Green Park,
Behind Ganapati Temple,
Amravati. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The Education Officer,
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, District Amravati.
2. Shri Dadasaheb Gavai Charitable Trust,
Shyamnagar, District Amravati,
Through it's Secretary.
3. The Headmaster,
Dadasaheb Gavai Vidyalaya,
Malhara, Taluka Achalpur,
District Amravati.
4. The Headmaster,
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya,
Frezarpura, Amravati,
District Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri N. S. Rao, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri P. S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:13 :::
2 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
CORAM:-
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
14/09/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Today, in Writ Petition Nos.5376/2017 and 519/2017,
we have taken note of unfortunate situation prevailing in administration
of Education Department. In this writ petition, we find a major evolved
by this Court on 17th June, 2016 while deciding Writ Petition
Nos.6606/2015 and 6607/2015 to protect the teachers being used by
the department again to victimize them.
3. In earlier matter, when we came across a
communication which reveals payment of Rs.8,50,000/- by that
petitioner, an explanation was offered that it is now an accepted
practice. We will deal with the statement and situation whenever that
petition is again called out, however, events at hand, do not show
perhaps any different situation.
4. The permission to recruit 8 teachers (Shikshan Sevaks)
was given on 26/02/2014. Accordingly, after following due process, all
vacancies were filled in. Six of these eight teachers have also been given
approval on 20th August, 2014.
5. The petitioners before this Court belong to socially
backward class and their caste certificates were under consideration of
3 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
the Competent Scrutiny Committee for grant of validity. The validity
has been given to them respectively on 04/12/2014 and 17/09/2014.
The petitioners got validity in February, 2015 and in December, 2014
respectively. Hence, after receipt, they handed over to management and
the management, in turn, forwarded the same to the Education
Department.
6. Their cases for grant of approval were looked into on
30th December, 2016 and on that date, respondent No.1 has passed the
impugned order.
7. The impugned order refuses to grant approval because
of communication dated 01/07/2016. Perusal of said communication
reveals that it is letter written by the State Government to all the
responsible officers in Education Department in furtherance of
directions of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.6606/2015 and 6607/2015
decided on 17/06/2016. There, we have partly allowed those petitions
with certain directions and in para 21 directed that :-
"We also direct the respondents that hereinafter no
'no objection' for recruitment or permission to effect
direct recruitment shall be granted except with
express certification by the Deputy Director of
Education of concerned division stating that no
surplus teachers to teach the concerned subjects are
available for absorption in State. This order shall be
circulated by the respondent no.1 to all its Deputy
4 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
Directors as also to all its Education Officers and also
to all its Managements within a period of 15 days
from today".
8. Thus, in those two writ petitions, after noticing facts,
Court found it proper to entrust responsibility of giving "no objection"
enabling management to proceed further with recruitment to superior
officer like Deputy Director of Education. This change and direction has
been given effect to vide communication dated 1st July, 2016.
9. These directions were issued by this Court in Judgment
meant for general applications were to protect interest of teachers in
such contingency and therefore, for future. Respondent No.1 has used
that letter dated 01/07/2016 while passing the impugned order to
unsettle the recruitment which was done in February-March, 2014.
Obviously, this could not have been done. It is more so because six
colleagues of these two petitioners recruited in same process were
already given necessary approval on 10th August, 2008 itself.
10. We, therefore, get two treatments to same recruitment
process. Part of process is accepted as valid and approval has been
granted while part of process has been upset because of later directions
which apparently have no application.
11. Shri Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
sought to justify the action by urging that validities were submitted
belatedly. It is common experience that verification of caste claim takes
5 J-14-WP-1066-17.odt
normally 2 - 3 years or at times more. Here, when impugned order was
passed, validities were very much in existence. Thus, absence of validity
was not the reason available.
12. We, therefore, find that non-existent reason has been
invented and used by respondent No.1 to deny approval to the
petitioners. We strongly condemn this.
13. We also direct the Secretary of State of Maharashtra to
take notice of this and proceed departmentally against the incumbent
then officiating who has passed the order dated 30th December, 2016.
14. We quash and set aside that order. The petitioners are
given approval on same lines as has been given to their counterparts on
20th August, 2014. Necessary orders in this respect shall be served upon
them, within three months.
15. Writ Petition is allowed. We direct respondent No.1 to
personally pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of the petitioners.
16. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
