Bombay High Court
Anil Charansingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Govinda Ananda Sanap
1 8.WP2659.19(j)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2659?2019
Anil Charansingh Rathod,
Aged 42 years, Occ.:Service,
At Dahatonda, Post: Hatgaon,
Tq.Murtizapur,District Akola.
....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Department of Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. Education Officer(Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola, District Akola.
4. Late Bapurao Maharaj Bahu,
Uddheshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Ramtek through its President.
Tq. Murtizapur, District Akola.
5. The Head Master,
Shri Balasaheb Thakre Vidyalaya, Kawatha (Sopinath),
Post Rajanapur,Kinkini,
Murtizapur, District Akola.
....... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ms. Deepali V.Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D.P.Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Apurv De, Advocate for respondent no.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR and G.A.SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2021
2 8.WP2659.19(j)
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S.Chandurkar, J.)
Rule. Heard finally considering the short issue involved.
2. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.03.2011. The
petitioner approached School Tribunal, Amravati by filing an appeal under Section 9
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation
Act, 1977. By the judgment dated 20.02.2013 the School Tribunal set aside the
order of termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. It also directed
the Management to pay 50% back-wages from 30.04.2011 till reinstatement.
3. The Management had filed Writ Petition No.1721/2013 for challenging
the aforesaid judgment of the School Tribunal but that writ petition was withdrawn
on 28.11.2017. Thereafter the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of
the petitioner was sent to the Education Officer (Secondary). The Education Officer
by his communication dated 31.03.2018 sought guidance from the Deputy Director
of Education, Amravati as to the basis on which such approval could be granted. On
09.05.2018 the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati has conveyed his opinion in
the matter to the Education Officer(Secondary).
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the proposal for grant approval
still remains undecided. We find that it was the Education Officer (Secondary) who
had sought guidance in the matter from the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati.
As such guidance has been given by the Deputy Director of Education on
09.05.2018, the Education Officer (Secondary) ought to have thereafter taken a
decision on the question of granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
3 8.WP2659.19(j)
However for no justifiable reason such decision has not been taken.
5. In that view of the matter, the Education Officer (Secondary) is directed
to take a decision on the question of grant of approval to the petitioner's
appointment in the light of the opinion given on 09.05.2018 by the Deputy Director
of Education, Amravati. Such decision be taken by the Education Officer (Secondary)
within a period of four weeks from the communication of this order.
Needless to state that the Education Officer (Secondary) may grant
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the representative of the
Management. The question of approval be decided on its own merits. The writ
petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. There shall be
no orders as to costs
JUDGE JUDGE
Andurkar..
