Bombay High Court
Sandip Gajanan Kulkarni vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru The ... on 25 January, 2021
Bench: S.C. Gupte, Surendra Pandharinath Tavade
sat 4. wpst 1934-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1934 OF 2019
Sandip Gajanan Kulkarni ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Chetan G. Patil i/b. Mandar G. Bagkar for Petitioner.
Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Bhooshan Mandlik for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE &
SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 25 JANUARY 2021
P.C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for
the 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 full-time teacher.
The Petitioner belongs to open category having qualifications of B.A. B.Ed.
He was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.4
college on 1 July 2005 for a period of one year. His appointment had been
continued ever since and even approval to that appointment was accorded
by the Educational authorities. Under the circular issued by the State on 31
January 2001, the Petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a full-time
Digitally
signed by
Sanskruti
A.
Sanskruti A.
Thakur 1/3
Date:
Thakur 2021.01.28
11:05:58
+0530
sat 4. wpst 1934-2019.doc
teacher upon a full-time post becoming vacant. Based of this circular,
directions were even issued by the Deputy Director of Education. The State
proceeded to issue a Government Resolution to the same effect on 10 June
2005. On 31 May 2018, one Ligade, who was a full-time teacher in
Respondent No.4 college, retired and as a result, a full-time post became
vacant. The Petitioner came to be appointed as a full-time Shikshan Sevak.
Respondent No.4 thereafter approached the Deputy Director of Education
(Respondent No.2) seeking approval to the post of teacher of the Petitioner
as a full-time Shikshan Sevak. Since there was no response from the office
of Respondent No.2, the present petition has been filed.
4 Learned AGP is not in a position to justify the inaction on the
part of Respondent No.2. The Respondent State has taken up a contention
in its reply that considering the G.R. of 23 June 2017, the Petitioner's
appointment cannot be approved. The G.R. of 23 June 2017 applies to new
appointments in full-time posts. It does not apply to upgradation of already
appointed part-time teachers as full-time appointees. This court has held so
in a number of judgments. In Purushottam H. Shirsekar v State of
Maharashtra1, a Division Bench of this court has clearly laid down that the
ban on fresh appointments, by no stretch of imagination, could apply to
those teachers, who were already in service as part-time teachers and the
proposal was in regard to their upgradation as full-time Assistant Teachers
in view of the G.R. of 31 January 2001 and 10 June 2005.
5 Rule, accordingly, is made absolute and the petition is allowed
by directing Respondent No.2 to take a decision on the application for
approval of the Petitioner's post as a full-time Assistant Teacher (the
1 WP 4120-2016 decided on 28.2.2017
sat 4. wpst 1934-2019.doc
Petitioner having completed his probationary period as Shikshan Sevak)
without regard to the ban on appointments contained in the G.R. of 23
June 2017. Respondent No.2 shall accord his approval to the Petitioner's
appointment, in case nothing is found against the propriety of the
appointment. Such decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks
from today.
6 The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)
