Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sandip Dattatray Aabhale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 689 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 689 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 January, 2021

Bombay High Court
Sandip Dattatray Aabhale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 January, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Abhay Ahuja
                                        {1}
                                                                  wp6349.19.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.6349 OF 2020


 1.       Sandip s/o Dattatray Abhale,
          Age : 41 years, Occu. Service,
          R/o Akalapur, Tq. Sangamner,
          Dist. Ahmednagar

 2.       Pravin s/o Nivrutti Divekar,
          Age : 34 years, Occu. Service,
          R/o Akalapur, Tq. Sangamner,
          Dist. Ahmednagar                     ..PETITIONERS

          Versus


 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through the Principal Secretary to
          School Education Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

 2.       The Education Ofcer (Secondary),
          Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar

 3.       Shri Ganesh Bahujan Vidya Prasarak
          Sanstha, Bota, A/P. Bota,
          Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
          Through its President            ...RESPONDENTS


 Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioners;
 Mrs G.L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2;
 Mr S.S. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.3



                                 CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
                                              AND
                                         ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
                                 DATE    : 13-01-2021





                                            {2}
                                                                       wp6349.19.odt




ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel appearing for parties fnally by consent.

2. After hearing, factual and un-disputable position emerges that petitioner no.1 had been appointed as Laboratory Attendant, whereas petitioner no.2 as Peon by respondent no.3 management - institution. To such appointments, Education Ofcer - respondent no.2 herein had granted approval with efect from 16-12-1997 and 13-06-2003, respectively. Having regard to the prevailing position pursuant to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, coupled with that the resolution had been issued by fnance department of the government of Maharashtra on 14-01-2016 raising the limit of promotion into clerical cadre from 25% to 50%, the respondent management, the petitioners having acquired qualifcations for the post of clerk, had promoted them as junior clerks on 01-12-2017. The management has submitted proposal to respondent no.2 seeking approval to promotion of petitioners. Said proposal has been rejected by the Education Ofcer on 17-03-2020, referring to government resolution dated 28-10-2004 and that there had been no revision of stafng pattern for non teaching staf.

{3} wp6349.19.odt

3. Learned Counsel Mr Shelke, during the course of his submissions, refers to an order dated 04-12-2020 in writ petition no.2321 of 2019, stating that present situation is wholly governed by said decision.

4. In present case, it would be pertinent to refer to Schedule 'F' of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, item '3', reading, thus,

"3. Guidelines for fixaion of senioriay of non-aexching saxf:

Clerks: The clerical and supervisory posts in the channel of promotion comprise Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and Superintendent, Seniority of Junior Clerks in a School or Schools shall be determined on the basis of the date of appointment of the persons concerned. The post of Senior Clerk shall be flled in by promotion of seniormost Junior Clerk. The posts of Head Clerk and Superintendent shall be flled in respectively by promotion of senior-most Senior Clerk and seniormost Head Clerk, respectively.

Librxrixn: In the case where the Management runs only one School a seniority list of Librarian need not be maintained as the post is an isolated one. In case where the Management runs more than one School a seniority list of Librarian shall be maintained on the basis of the date of appointment. The Librarian shall not be held eligible for promotion to any other post.

{4} wp6349.19.odt

Lxborxaory Assisaxnas: A seniority list of Laboratory Assistants shall be maintained on the basis of the date of appointment. The incumbents of the posts shall not be held eligible for promotion to any other post.

Lower Grxde Saxf: A common seniority list of Lxborxaory Aaaendxna, Naik, Oilman, Machine Attendant, Peon, Watchman,Chowkidar, Sweeper, call-woman, Kamathi, Attendant, Laboratory Hamal, Liftmen and such other lower grade staf, if any, shall be maintained on the basis of the dates of their appointment. If xny of ahe lower grxde saxf improves his quxlifcxaions as prescribed either for ahe posa of Laboratory Assistant or Clerk, such employee should be given preference while flling in ahe sxid posa according to his place in seniority. "

5. Schedule speaks of giving preference to an incumbent employee improving his qualifcations, to be considered for promotion to the post of junior clerk.

6. Apart from aforesaid, perusal of the government resolution dated 28-10-2004 would show that it does not speak of promotional post to be flled in by direct recruitment. Non revision of stafng pattern would not be a ground to detain recruitment on a available post.

7. Taking into account the purport underlying the decision relied on, on behalf of the petitioners, it appears that the rejection to approve promotion of petitioners on the post of Clerk would not be tenable. The reasons given in the impugned order

{5} wp6349.19.odt

as well as those in the afdavit in reply are not the reasons to detain promotion on the post which otherwise would be available to the petitioners in normal course.

8. For all aforesaid reasons coupled with decisions relied on behalf of petitioners, namely in the cases of Ashok s/o. Shankarrao Shinde Versus Probodhan Shikshan Sanstha and others, reported in 1999 (1) Bom. C.R. 800 and Ramesh Shivram Khairnar Versus State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003 (4) Bom. C.R. 470, it would be expedient that the impugned order is set aside.

9. As such, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate orders on proposal submitted for petitioners' promotion as junior clerk. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

 (ABHAY AHUJA)                     (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
    JUDGE                                 JUDGE


 amj





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter