Bombay High Court
Shri Nandkishore S. Chavan And Anr vs The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi High ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
bdp
1
15-wp-1640.05.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1640 OF 2005
1) Nandkishore Shamrao Chavan, )
residing at K.L.Colony, M.G.Road, )
Thane (E) )
2) Sanjay Shankar Kadam, )
residing at Raghunath Pandey Chawl, )
Hajuri Gaon, Road no. 15, Wagle Estate,)
Thane ) ... Petitioners
Versus
1) The Principal, )
Rajiv Gandhi High School P & T Colony)
P K Road, Mulund Mumbai )
2) President/Secretary, )
Samajik Ekta Samiti having their office)
at Rajiv Gandhi High School P & T Colony,)
P K Road, Mulund, Mumbai )
3) The Education Inspector, )
North Zone, Chembur (E), )
Mumbai - 71 )
4) State of Maharashtra, )
Through Govt. Pleader, )
O.S., High Court, Mumbai ) ... Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1640 OF 2005
1) Nandkishore Shamrao Chavan, )
residing at K.L.Colony, M.G.Road, )
Thane (E) )
bdp
2
15-wp-1640.05.doc
2) Sanjay Shankar Kadam, )
residing at Raghunath Pandey Chawl, )
Hajuri Gaon, Road no. 15, Wagle Estate,)
Thane ) ... Petitioners/
Org.Petitioners
Versus
1) A.R.Upadhyau, )
The Principal, )
Rajiv Gandhi High School P & T Colony)
P.K.Road, Mulund, Mumbai )
2) Sanjay K.Dubey, )
The Secretary, )
Samajik Ekta Samiti having office at )
Rajiv Gandhi High School, P & T Colony,)
P. K. Road, Mulund, Mumbai )
3) Anil S.Sable, )
The Education Inspector, )
North Zone, Mumbai ) ... Contemnors/
Respondents/Org.
Respondents
******
Mr. Satyajeet Anil Rajeshirke for the Petitioners.
Mr. Mayuresh Lagu for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
******
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D.DHANUKA, J.) :-
. Rule in Writ Petition. Mr. Lagu, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives service. Mr. Dighe, learned AGP for
bdp
15-wp-1640.05.doc
the respondent nos. 3 and 4 waives service. By consent of parties, the
petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 14 th March, 2005
passed by the respondent no.3 refusing to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner and order dated 30 th March, 2005 and
order dated 2nd April, 2005 /4th April, 2005 refusing to grant approval to
the appointment of the petitioners issued by the respondent no.2 and
orders dated 14th March, 2005, 30th April, 2005 and order dated 2nd
April, 2005 / 4th April, 2005 passed by the respondent no.3 refusing to
grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and also order dated
30th March, 2005.
3. The petitioner no.1 is qualified as B.Sc B.Ed and was initially
appointed in the respondent no.1-school on 28th May, 2004 in Marathi
medium school. At the relevant time, the respondent no.1 was running
on non-grant basis. The grant-in-aid was given to the respondent no.1
for the first time in the year 2004-05. The services of the petitioner
no.1 were terminated on 30th March, 2005. In view of the order
rejecting the approval by the respondent no.3 by letter dated 14 th
March, 2005 on the ground that the petitioner no.1 was appointed on
the post which was reserved for D.Ed candidate, the services of the
petitioner were terminated.
4. Insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is qualified as B.A.
B.Ed and was initially appointed on 19 th July, 1997 in the respondent
bdp
15-wp-1640.05.doc
no.1-school and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Marathi medium
school w.e.f. 20th April 1998 vide letter dated 28th May, 1998. At the
relevant time, the respondent no.1 was running on non-grant basis. The
grant-in-aid was given to the respondent no.1 for the first time in the
year 2004-2005. The respondent no.3 rejected the approval vide letter
dated 14th March, 2005 on the ground that the petitioner no.2 was
appointed on a post reserved for D.Ed candidate. Based on the said
letter, the Management terminated the services of the petitioner no.2 by
issuing letter dated 30th March, 2005. Being aggrieved by the orders
passed by respondent no.3 and the Management, the petitioner have
filed this writ petition.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner no.1
retired by superannuation.
6. Insofar as Contempt Petition No. 66 of 2016 is concerned, the
petitioners have filed this petition for initiating an action against the
respondent for not complying with the interim order dated 2 nd May,
2005. On 27th June, 2005, this Court had continued the ad-interim
order dated 2nd May, 2005. On 2nd May, 2005, this Court granted ad-
interim in terms of prayer clause (c) of the Writ Petition thereby
restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the
petitioners in the respondent no.1-school pursuant to the letter dated
30th March, 2005 issued by the respondent no.2.
7. Mr. Rajeshirke, learned counsel for the petitioner on earlier
occasion tendered an additional affidavit dated 4th August, 2021 and
bdp
15-wp-1640.05.doc
would submit that in view of the averments made by the petitioner in
the additional affidavit, Writ Petition may be disposed of. He invited
our attention to the unreported judgment of this Court delivered on 27 th
June, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2013 filed by Mrs. Medha
Deepak Khobrekar & Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and
another companion writ petition and would submit that the rejection of
the appointment of the petitioners in that writ petition was solely on the
ground that the petitioners did not possess D.Ed qualification at the
time of their initial appointments and was in issue before this Court.
He submits that after construing the said Government Resolution dated
11th November, 2011, this Court held that even those teachers who had
acquired B.Ed degree were eligible to be appointed on the said post
reserved for D.Ed qualification.
8. Mr. Lagu, learned counsel for the Management states that this
petition can be disposed of in line with the principles laid down by this
Court in the said judgment in case of Mrs. Medha Deepak Khobrekar
& Ors. (supra).
9. It is not in dispute that on the date of initial appointment of the
petitioners, the petitioners were holding the B.Ed degree and not D.Ed.
The approval to the appointment of the petitioners was rejected only on
the ground that none of the petitioners were holding the D.Ed
qualification though were holding the post of B.Ed.
10. This Court in the said judgment in case of Mrs. Medha Deepak
Khobrekar & Ors. (supra) has considered various Government
bdp
15-wp-1640.05.doc
Resolutions and has held that the teachers holding B.Ed qualification
on the date of initial appointment also could be appointed on the post
of reserved for D.Ed qualification. In the said judgment this Court,
dealt with the Clause (b) of the said Government Resolution dated 11 th
November, 2011 and in paragraph 20 has held that in line of
Government Resolution dated 11th November, 2011 even those teachers
are entitled to be considered as trained teachers from the date of their
initial appointments. In that matter, all the teachers who were the
petitioners were appointed during the period between 7th August, 1990
and 13th April, 1994. However, in paragraph 24 of the said judgment,
in the facts of that case, this Court directed that the petitioners therein
were entitled to reliefs on the basis of Government Resolution dated
11th November, 2011 but the seniority thereof shall be notionally fixed
in the final seniority list of trained teachers working in the primary
school of respondent no.2-school from the date of their initial
appointments. It is further directed that the petitioners shall be entitled
to consequential benefits as a result of the placement of the petitioners
in the seniority list in terms of those directions.
11. In our view, on plain reading of Clause (b) of the said
Government Resolution dated 11th November, 2011, it is clear that all
the teachers who were holding B.Ed qualification and though were
appointed in excess of 25% quota prior to the date of the said
Government Resolution were eligible to be appointed to the post of
Assistant Teachers/Teachers though holding the B.Ed qualification on
the post reserved for the candidates holding D.Ed qualification. These
petitioners were thus entitled to be appointed to the said post though
bdp
15-wp-1640.05.doc
were holding B.Ed qualification on the initial date of appointment and
on the pay-scale payable to the Assistant teachers holding B.Ed
qualification on the initial date of appointment.
12. Insofar as the petitioner nos. 1 is concerned, the petitioner has
already retired by superannuation during the pendency of this petition.
The petitioner also thus would be entitled to quashing and setting aside
of the order of rejection of approval to the appointment on the said post
though was holding B.Ed qualification from the initial date of
appointment.
13. We accordingly pass the following order :-
(a) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The
Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioners to the post hold by them
from the initial date of appointment within four weeks
from today.
(b) The Management is directed to submit pay bills of both
the petitioners by computing the pay-scale payable to
these petitioners as B.Ed teachers from the date of
termination within eight weeks from today. The Education
Officer shall release the amount due to the petitioners in
terms of the calculations that will be made by the
Management within eight weeks thereafter. Insofar as the
petitioner no.1 is concerned, he will be entitled to the
bdp
15-wp-1640.05.doc
difference in pay and all consequential benefits till the date
of his retirement by superannuation and the pension and
other retirement benefits due on that basis.
(c) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(d) In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner does not press
for any reliefs in Contempt Petition and is accordingly
dismissed.
(e) Interim Application, pending if any in the writ petition is
also disposed of as infructuous in view of disposal of writ
petition. The parties to act on the authenticated copy of
this order.
[ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
Digitally signed
by BIPIN
BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date:
2021.11.24
10:32:56 +0530
