Bombay High Court
Sunil Balaso Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 10 February, 2021
Bench: S.C. Gupte, Surendra Pandharinath Tavade
Smita Digitally signed by
Smita Gonsalves
Gonsalves Date: 2021.02.17
16:00:31 +0530
sg 1/3 13. wp1333,1335&1373-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1333 OF 2018
Sunil Balaso Patil .. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1335 OF 2018
Pratibha Bhagwan Patil .. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.1373 OF 2018
Nilesh Shivaji Patil .. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
....
Mr. Umesh H. Pawar, for the Petitioner.
Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP/1333/2018.
Mr. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP/1335/2018.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP/1373/2018.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
....
CORAM: S.C. GUPTE &
SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 10 FEBRUARY, 2021.
P.C:-
1 of 3
sg 2/3 13. wp1333,1335&1373-18.doc
. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned AGP for
Respondent State in each petition and learned Counsel for private
Respondents. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent.
2. The subject matter of these three petitions concerns rejection
of the respective proposals for approvals to the appointments of the
respective Petitioners in the posts of Shikshan Sevaks. The proposals were
rejected on the ground of the G.R. of 2 May 2012, which bans fresh
appointments until all surplus teachers are absorbed. This Court has
made it clear in a number of judgments that the G.R. of 2 May 2012 does
not apply to the appointments made before that date. The lead judgment
is to be found in the case of Smt. Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa vs. State of
Maharashtra Through Secretary1. It is not in dispute that each individual
appointment being the subject matter of the present petitions was made
prior to 2 May 2012.
3. Learned AGP is not able to show any distinguishing feature of
the present case to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts
in the case of Munoli.
4. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute and the petitions are
allowed by quashing and setting aside the rejection orders passed in the
case of individual Petitioners by Respondent No.5-Education Officer and
directing Respondent No.5 to grant individual approvals to the
appointments of the Petitioners to consider approval to the appointments
of individual Petitioners in the posts of Shikshan Sevaks at the Respondent
Primary Schools as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a
1 Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016 with connected writ petitions, dated 10 July 2017
2 of 3
sg 3/3 13. wp1333,1335&1373-18.doc
period of six weeks from today. The proposals for approvals shall be
considered without reference to the G.R. of 2 May 2012. It is made clear
that the proposals shall be considered and, if found to be in order, shall be
approved with effect from the date of individual appointments of the
Petitioners as Shikshan Sevaks and honorarium/salary shall, accordingly,
be released with all arrears. Respondent No.5-Zilla Parishad has filed its
reply to these petitions urging several other grounds on which they
contest the proposals for approval. These are matters to be considered by
the Education Officer. The Zilla Parishad will be within its rights to make
its representation before the Education Officer, who shall take proper
decision in accordance with law and this order.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)
3 of 3
