Shri. Rajendra Sopan Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8956 Bom

KVM

                                         1/9
                                                 6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10516 OF 2018

Sadanand Krishnarao Bhosale                             ..... Petitioner
     VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         ..... Respondents
                            ALONGWITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10520 OF 2018

Rajendra Sopan Pol                                      ..... Petitioner
     VERSUS
 The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                          ..... Respondents

Mr.Chetan Patil, a/w. Mr.Mandar G. Bagkar for the Petitioners.
Mr.N.K.Rajpurohit, A.G.P. for the State - Respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the Respondent nos. 4 and 5.

                                  CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                         R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 9th JULY, 2021 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

P.C:-

Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondent nos. 1 to

3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5

waives service.

2. By consent of parties, matters are heard finally.

3. By these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 19th March,

2018 passed by the respondent no.3 thereby rejecting the approval to

the post of the full time teacher and seeks further order and direction

against the respondent no.4 to absorb the petitioners to the post of the

assistant teacher in the school run by the respondent no.4 and further

direction against the respondent no.3 for the appointment of the

petitioner from 10th June, 2005 and grant all further benefits.

4. The petitioners were appointed as teachers in the school run by

the respondent no.4 on 28th December, 1996. It is the case of the

petitioners that though several full time posts were available in the

school run by the respondent no.4 and the petitioners were having work

load of a full time teacher, the petitioners were not appointed as full

time teacher to the said posts.

5. Both these petitioners filed two separate writ petitions before this

Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1587 of 2016 and Writ Petition

No.2258 of 2016 respectively. After hearing the parties, this Court by

a judgment dated 24th November, 2017 directed the respondent no.3 to

decide the claim within two months from the date of the said judgment.

This Court clarified that if the respondent no.3 comes to the conclusion

that the petitioners are entitled for absorption as full time

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

teachers/shikshan sevaks, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall appoint

such of the petitioners who are found eligible and submit a proposal for

grant of approval for the said appointment to the respondent no.3

within a period of one month from the date of the decision of the

respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 thereafter shall take necessary

steps and pass appropriate orders with regard to grant of approval with

regard to such of the petitioners who are found eligible.

6. Pursuant to the said judgment delivered by this Court,

respondent no.3 passed an order on 19th March, 2018 refusing to grant

approval on the ground that the Government Resolution dated 23 rd

June, 2017 was not followed by the management while making fresh

appointment. Both the petitioners have impugned the said judgment

delivered by the respondent no.3.

7. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention

to various exhibits annexed to the petitions and also the judgment

delivered by this Court on 24th November, 2017 in the earlier writ

petitions filed by the petitioners and also the findings rendered by the

respondent no.3 in the impugned order. It is submitted that the

petitioners were already appointed as a part time teachers which

appointment were duly approved by the Education Officer.

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

8. It is submitted that though the full time post was available, the

management did not absorb the petitioners to such post. He strongly

relied upon the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court

on 25th January, 2021 in Writ Petition (L) No. 1934 of 2019 filed by

Sandip Gajanan Kulkarni vs. the State of Maharashtra and others

and would submit that this Court has construed the Government

Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017 and has categorically held that the

said Government Resolution applies to the new appointments in full

time posts and does not apply to upgradation of already appointed part

time teachers as full time appointees.

9. Mr.Rajpurohit, learned A.G.P. for the State on the other hand

states that the management did not send any proposal for appointment

of the petitioners on full time basis. He strongly placed reliance on the

Government Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017 and would submit that

even otherwise under the said Government Resolution, the

management cannot appoint any teacher on the full time basis by way

of new recruitment. He tried to distinguish the judgment delivered by

this Court on 25th January, 2021 passed by a Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1934 of 2019 filed by Sandip Gajanan

Kulkarni vs. the State of Maharashtra and others and would submit

that in the said judgment, the respondent no.2 therein was directed to

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

grant approval to the petitioner's appointment, in case nothing is found

against the propriety of the appointment.

10. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder would

submit that there is no question of raising any other issue in respect of

the propriety of the appointment since the appointment of the

petitioners as part time teachers has been already appointed by the

education officer in past and the said approval cannot be reconsidered.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as a part

time teachers in the school run by the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Those

appointments of the petitioners as part time teachers were already

approved by the education officer. The petitioners were entitled to be

absorbed as full time teachers in the vacancy occurred for such post

with the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 however

did not forward the proposal of the petitioners for the vacant post of the

full time teachers to the authority for approval.

12. By a detailed judgment delivered by this Court on 24 th

November, 2017 in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners,

this Court after referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in batch of writ petitions i.e. Sanjay Sarangdhar Gaikwad vs.

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 12275 of 2016

decided on 19th April, 2017 directed the authority to pass an appropriate

order in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of

this Court in the said judgment and to decide the claims of the

petitioners.

13. In our view contrary to the said directions issued by Division

Bench of this Court on 24th November, 2017, the authority rejected the

claims of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment of the

petitioners on the full time teacher's post would be contrary to the

Government Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017.

14. The contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader are contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the

judgment delivered in the case of Sandip Gajanan Kulkarni (supra).

This Court in the said judgment has categorically held that the

Government Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017 applies to the new

appointments in the full time posts and does not apply to upgradition of

already appointed part time teachers as full time appointees. This

Court adverted to the judgment in case of Purshottam H. Shirsekar vs.

State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 4120 of 2016 decided on

28th February, 2017 and allowed the said writ petition by directing the

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

authority to take the decision on the application for approval of the

petitioner's post as a full time Assistant Teacher having completed his

probationary period as Shikshan Sevak with regard to the ban on

appointments contained in the Government Resolution dated 23 rd June,

2017. This Court also directed the respondent no.2 to record his

approval to the petitioner's case in case nothing is found against the

propriety of the appointment. In our view, the said judgments squarely

applies to the facts of this case.

15. The petitioners are not seeking any appointment to the post of

full time teachers as and by way of new appointment but by way of

upgradation of already appointed as part time teachers. The

Government Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017 pressed in service by the

authority thus does not apply. The learned A.G.P. could not point out

any other issue against the propriety of the appointment for the said full

time post claimed by the petitioners as and by way of upgradation.

16. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the authority clearly

indicates that the impugned order is contrary to the principles laid

down by this Court and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside.

17. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

 KVM


                                                  6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc



           (a)         Impugned order dated 19th March, 2018

passed by the respondent no.3 is quashed and set

aside.

(b) The respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to

absorb the petitioners to the post of Assistant

Teacher in the school run by the respondent no.4

from 27th November, 2015 i.e. the last date of the

appointment and are further directed to send the

application for approval to the respondent no.3 for

grant of approval to the said appointment w.e.f. 27 th

November, 2015 within two weeks from today.

(c) The respondent no.3 shall grant approval to

the said appointments to the post of Assistant

Teacher to the petitioners in the school run by the

respondent no.4 within four weeks from the date of

the receipt of the said application.

(d) It is made clear that the petitioners would

be entitled to the benefits and salary and other

KVM

6 & 7 - WP 10516 & 10520 OF 2018.doc

perquisite payable to the Assistant Teacher in the

school run by the respondent no.4 from the date of

such approval.

           (e)         Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid

           terms.


           (f)         The parties to act on the authenticated copy

           of this order.


           (g)         No order as to costs.



[R.I.CHAGLA, J.]                                [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]