Bombay High Court
Sau. Fauziya Tabassum Syed ... vs Vasant Atmaram Ingole, Officer, ... on 21 June, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
29-wp6944-2019.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2019
(Sau. Fauziya Tabassum Syed Ateeque Ahmed Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through
Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai and others )
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.219 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8654 OF 2018
(Sau. Fauziya Tabassum Syed Ateeque Ahmed Vs. Vasant Atmaram Ingole and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner in both the petitions.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for the respondent No.1 and2 /State in
WP No.6944/2019
Mr.Ghare, Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in in WP
No.6944 of 2019 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in C.P
No.219/2019
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 21st JUNE, 2021.
Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Heard Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The judgment of this Court dated 26.06.2019
rendered in Writ Petition No.8654 of 2018 is
unambiguous. It interprets the provisions made in Rule
29-wp6944-2019.odt
27(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981
(hereinafter "Rules of 1981" for short) very clearly. This
Court has found that there is a binding obligation under
Rule 27(e) of the Rules of 1981 to choose, while making
retrenchment of a teacher, firstly the junior most
teacher and to examine, if required, the category in
which such junior most teacher is appointed. This Court
further found that if the junior most teacher is
appointed in the Other Backward Class (OBC) Category
and if it is seen that by retaining such junior most
teacher in the same school, the percentage of the
teachers in that backward category does not exceed,
then the other teacher belonging to non backward
category has to be selected for retrenchment.
4. In the present case, there were in all eight
sanctioned posts of teachers, out of which seven posts
were from Open Category and one post was from OBC
Category. The petitioner was junior most teacher
amongst all the teachers and therefore, in ordinary
course, would have been selected for being retrenched
and absorbed in due course in another school. But, the
petitioner was appointed in the OBC Category and as
seen from the impugned order (Annexure-T), dated
04.09.2019, the petitioner was the only person who was
29-wp6944-2019.odt
appointed in the OBC Category and therefore, by
retaining her in the same school and excluding her from
retrenchment and absorption, the percentage of the
reserved seats would not have exceeded the seats
reserved in those categories. This finding has also been
recorded by the Incharge Education Officer, when he
first passed an order of retention of the petitioner in the
school on 25.07.2019 (Annexure 'R'), which he
withdrew, apparently on the same day of 25.07.2019 by
another order (Annexure-S), though it is doubtful
whether the order which is at Annexure-S has been
passed on the same day or the date of this order has
been manipulated by falsely showing that it has been
passed on 25.07.2019.
5. In fact, it is the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Annexure 'S' order is a
manipulated document so far as date is concerned. We
will consider this submission later on. But, what
emerges today is the fact well established on record that
there was only one post of teacher reserved for OBC
Category and that post was filled up by appointing the
petitioner and therefore, by retention of the petitioner
in the same school, there would not have been any
violation of Rule 27(e) of the Rules of 1981, rather,
there would have been compliance with this Rule and
29-wp6944-2019.odt
also the findings recorded by this Court in its judgment
and order dated 26.06.2019 rendered in Writ Petition
No.8654 of 2018. Then, this Court had also directed the
Education Officer (Secondary) to take decision in that
matter within a period of two months from the date of
the said judgment and order and that means, decision in
this case ought to have been made by the Education
Officer (Secondary) on or before 26.08.2019. Though
the decision appears to have been taken in time, the
manner in which it is taken, in our opinion, prima-facie,
amounts to committing contempt of Court. It is, prima-
facie, seen that Mr.T.A. Narale, Education Officer
(Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Washim has taken a decision
throwing to winds the mandate of Rule 27(e) of Rules
of 1981, inspite of this Court having clarified the same
in no uncertain terms. There is also an issue of
manipulation of the date of withdrawal of the first order
at Annexure-R.
6. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for
respondent/Nagar Parishad submits that it is incorrect
to say that TA Bills of the petitioner are not being
forwarded to the Education Officer(Secondary),
Washim.
7. Issue notice to Mr.T.A. Narale, Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Washim, returnable
29-wp6944-2019.odt
on 07.07.2021.
8. We direct Mr. T.A. Narale to remain present
before this Court on 07.07.2021 virtually or physically,
as per his convenience and submit his explanation as to
why proceedings of Contempt of Court be not initiated
against him.
9. We request the learned Addl. GP to produce
before this Court the original Outward Register
pertaining to the relevant period of two months i.e. July
2019 to August 2019 on the next date.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
