Hari Maruti Kumbhar vs State Of Maharashtra Thru The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2128 Bom

                     sat                                              21. wp 4327-2019 & wp 13328-2018].doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4327 OF 2019

                           Hari Maruti Kumbhar                               ...Petitioner
                                 vs.
                           The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                   ...Respondents

                                                            AND
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 13328 OF 2018 (NOT ON BOARD)

                           Ganesh Vishnu Purekar                             ...Petitioner
                                 vs.
                           The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                   ...Respondents

                           Mr.Chetan G. Patil for Petitioner.
                           Ms.P.N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                           Mr.M.G. Bagkar for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

                                                             CORAM : S.C. GUPTE &
                                                                     SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

                                                             DATE     : 2 FEBRUARY 2021

                           P.C. :

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for Respondent - State.

2 Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith, by consent of Counsel.

3 The subject matter of controversy in the present petition concerns approval to the Petitioner's appointment as a Peon in Respondent No.4 school. His appointment was made on 1 March 2008. Immediately

Digitally signed by Sanskruti Sanskruti A.

Thakur A.

Thakur Date:

2021.02.04

12:39:59 +0530 sat 21. wp 4327-2019 & wp 13328-2018].doc

thereafter, Respondent No.4 approached Respondent No.2 - Education Officer (Secondary) seeking approval to the appointment. After many reminders, finally by his order dated 25 June 2018, passed merely after more than 10 years of the submission of the proposal seeking approval, Respondent No.2 refused to grant approval purportedly on the ground that under G.Rs. of 23 October 2013 and 12 February 2015, the school managements were directed to maintain status quo in respect of appointment of non-teaching staff pending receipt of correct staffing pattern announced by the State. By our order dated 19 January 2021 passed in the case of Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge vs. State of Maharashtra1, we had made it clear that these two G.Rs. do not apply to appointments made before the date of the G.Rs. We have given elaborate reasons and discussed the case law in this behalf in the judgment.

4 Learned A.G.P. is not in a position to join issues with the decision made in Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge. Admittedly, there is no distinguishing feature in the present case to distinguish it from the facts of Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge.

5 Accordingly, Rule is made absolute and the petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25 June 2018 and directing Respondent No.2 to consider grant of approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, since the date of his appointment, i.e. 1 March 2008, and release the grant-in-aid for payment of salary since that date, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of six weeks from today.

1 WP 3525-2019

sat 21. wp 4327-2019 & wp 13328-2018].doc

WRIT PETITION NO. 13328 OF 2018

The challenge to the impugned order in the companion petition, Writ Petition No.13328/2018, is more or less on the same footing as the challenge in the petition discussed above. In this case, the Petitioner was originally appointed as a Junior Clerk with effect from 2 February 2009. His proposal for approval was duly forwarded by the management of the school to Respondent No.2 - Education Officer. After a long time, the application has been rejected by Respondent No.2 on the ground of G.Rs. of 23 October 2013 and 12 February 2015.

2 Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith, by consent of Counsel.

3 For the reasons stated above in the case of Writ Petition No.4327/2019, Rule is made absolute and the petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of Respondent No.2 dated 9 July 2018 and directing Respondent No.2 to consider the grant of approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, since the date of his appointment, i.e. 2 February 2009, and release the grant-in-aid for payment of salary since that date, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of six weeks from today.

(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)