Bombay High Court
Seema Madhav Kandgire vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 January, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Abhay Ahuja
(1)
J_WP-371_ 2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
956 WRIT PETITION NO.371 OF 2019
Smt. Seema d/o Mahadev Kandgire
Age : 28 years, occ : service
R/o At Post Navandi, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Education Offcer
(Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Latur.
3. The Secretary,
Navsamaj Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Saneguruji Smarak,
Station Road, Udgir,
District Latur.
4. The Head Master,
Saneguruji Prathmik Vidyamandir,
Saneguruji Smarak, Station Road,
Udgir, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur. Respondents
...
Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. G.L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent / State.
Mr. Ramrao D. Biradar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4.
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 20th January 2021.
J_WP-371_ 2019.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
learned counsel for the parties fnally, with consent.
2. The petitioner is graduate in Arts and also holds
Diploma in Education. She comes from " Yelam" Other
Backward Class category (OBC) and has been issued validity
certifcate by concerned Scrutiny Committee.
3. Respondents no. 3 and 4 had issued an
advertisement on 03-12-2011 in newspaper inviting
applications for the post of Assistant Teacher having
educational qualifcations H.S.C., D.Ed. from OBC category.
Petitioner being qualifed and eligible according to the
prescribed criteria, had applied for appointment to said post.
After following due recruitment process, initially she was
appointed as "Shikshan Sevak" pursuant to the scheme on
the consolidated pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The
Education Offcer - respondent no. 2 herein had given
approval to her said appointment for three year period ending
on 15.01.2015. On completion of probationary period, her
services were made permanent and even respondent no.2 had
issued approval to her appointment in the pay-scale of
Rs.5200-20200 Grade-pay Rs. 2800/- with effect from
J_WP-371_ 2019.odt
05.11.2015 on permanent basis under his order dated
09.02.2015.
4. Petitioner complains that despite all due procedure
being followed she being qualifed, had been appointed as
OBC category candidate and had also acquired permanency
in service accordingly, yet she had not been being paid
honorarium / salary and other benefts as were due to her.
Her series of requests were being dawdled over and no fruitful
and tangible benefts were being given to her and as such, she
has been driven to knock the doors of this court.
5. Aforesaid factual position has not been in dispute,
albeit on behalf of respondent no. 2 - Education Offcer, the
petition is sought to be resisted, referring to paragraph no.4
of the affdavit-in-reply fled on its behalf, purporting to
contend that though permanent approval has been given with
effect from 05-01-2015, but on verifying offce record, certain
documents were found not to be in order and were not
genuine including the signatures and those appeared to be
fabricated and that the management had not obtained prior
permission for advertising the post in view of provisions of
Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. It has further
J_WP-371_ 2019.odt
been purportedly referred to that in staffng pattern of the
year 2012-2013 there were 17 of grant-in-aid posts whereas 5
posts were non-grant-in-aid and one teacher had been in
excess. Petitioner's appointment has been shown to be in
grant-in-aid post but it cannot be said to be an appropriate
appointment.
6. After being questioned as to the record which had
been verifed with reference to the aforesaid observations in
paragraphs no. 3 and 4, same could not be substantiated by
producing any material nor any justifcation could be given to
the same.
7. It clearly emerges from the documents on record
that petitioner's appointment has been given approval for a
period of three years from 2012 to 2015 and had been
subsequently even been given permanent approval with effect
from 15-01-2015. No document has been placed on record on
behalf of respondent no.2, to show that petitioner's
appointment had been made on a non-grant-in-aid post. As a
matter of fact permanent approval letter which has been
placed on record by the petitioner shows that permanency
has been granted to her service with effect from 05-01-2015 in
the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade-pay of Rs. 2800/-.
J_WP-371_ 2019.odt
8. Apart from aforesaid, along with the re-joinder the
petitioner has placed on record advertisement inviting
applications and has also placed on record that the
advertisement had been preceded with a request under letter
dated 20-11-2011 for issuing advertisement to fll up the post.
9. In the circumstances, the approach of respondent
no.2 in the matter appears to be too casual to be approved of
and falls too short to term it as perfunctory. There is stark
absence of proper application of mind. It is poignant state of
affairs surfacing in the present matter that legitimate dues
and compensation for services being rendered by her are
being blocked from being given to petitioner.
10. In view of forgoing discussion, we deem it
appropriate to allow writ petition and the same is allowed in
terms of prayer clause 'B'.
11. Respondent no.2 should do all that is necessary
for payment of all dues to petitioner and pay to her within a
period of 3 months from the date of receipt of writ this order.
12. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition is
disposed of.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
VD_Dhirde
