Bombay High Court
Shri. Santosh Shankarappa ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
7.1875.20-wp.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BASAVRAJ
GURAPPA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PATIL
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ WRIT PETITION NO.1875/2020
GURAPPA PATIL
Date: 2021.10.27
15:52:09 +0530
Santosh Shankarappa Umarani ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5
CORAM: R.D.DHANUKA &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 26, 2021
P.C.
1 Mr. Prashant Bhavake, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner seeks leave to delete the names of Respondents
No.6 and 7 from the cause title.
2 Leave granted. Amendment shall be carried out
forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.
3 Rule.
The learned AGP waives service for the Respondents.
4 By consent of the parties the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
Basavraj G. Patil 1/5
7.1875.20-wp.odt
5 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India the Petitioner has impugned the order dated
28.07.2017 passed by the Education Officer whereby
rejecting to grant proposal submitted by the Management
seeking individual approval to the appointment of the
Petitioner made by the Umarni Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Umarani on the post of Shikshan Sevak at Khojanwadi
Kannad Secondary School, Khojanwadi.
6 The Petitioner also seeks an order of direction against
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to grant proposal and issue order
granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner and
release all salary benefits to the Petitioner.
7 It is the case of Petitioner that the Management had
issued an advertisement on 25.08.2012 in the daily
newspaper inviting applications from the suitable
candidates for the post of Shikshan Sevak having
qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed. The Petitioner was appointed on
the post of Shiskshan Sevak by the Management on
01.11.2012 after following due process of law. The
Management, thereafter, submitted a proposal in the year
2016 seeking individual approval to the appointment of the
Petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak. Respondent No.5,
however, returned the said proposal on 02.06.2016 and
directed to resubmit the proposal for individual approval.
Said proposal was submitted by the Management to
Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, however, on 28.07.2017
passed a fresh order rejecting the said proposal.
Basavraj G. Patil 2/5
7.1875.20-wp.odt
8 Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has
filed the present Writ Petition.
9 Mr.Bhavake, the learned counsel for the Petitioner
has invited our attention to the impugned order and various
documents annexed to the petition. He also placed reliance
on a judgment delivered by this court on 07.10.2021 in
Writ Petition No.8166/2019 filed by Nitin D. Panchal Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. and other companion matters
in support of his submission that the ban would not be
applicable to three categories (1) where the recruitment
process is already commenced prior to Government
Resolution dated 02.05.2012 (2) Insofar as the appointment
made for the subjects of English, Maths and Science are
concerned (3) where the recruitment is made to fulfill the
backlog of reserved category candidates. He relies on
paragraph 4 of the said judgment.
10 The learned AGP for the State relied on the Affidavit in
Reply filed by the State notarized on 18.10.2021 and would
submit that after considering the staffing pattern for the
Academic Year 2014-2015 for 9th and 10th standard, there
were three sanctioned posts of teachers available in
Respondent No.5 school but as per record, 4 teachers were
already working and therefore one teacher was surplus in
the year 2016-17 and 2017-18. It is submitted that the
Petitioner was denied the approval on the ground of non
availability of vacant post in the Academic Year 2016-17 as
per the documents available with the Education Officer. He
invited our attention to the table mentioned in paragraph 3
Basavraj G. Patil 3/5
7.1875.20-wp.odt
of the said affidavit in support of his statement.
11 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed
on 01.09.2012. Even according to the table submitted by the
State in para 3, in the year 2013 one post was lying vacant.
Merely because there was no post lying vacant in the year
2014.15 or there was surplus post in the year 2016-17 and
2017-18, the approval could not have been rejected on that
ground. It is not the case of the State Government that the
Petitioner was appointed in the year 2014-15, 2016-17 or
2017-18.
12 In our view, the Petitioner having been appointed for
the subjects Maths as well as Science, the judgment
delivered by this court on 07.10.2021 in the case of Nitin D.
Panchal (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this
case.
13 In our view, the impugned order is contrary to the
view taken by this court and hence deserves to be set aside.
14 We, accordingly, pass the following order:
a. The Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (b).
b. It is made clear that the time granted to the
Education Officer to grant individual approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner would be 4 weeks from
today and not 2 weeks.
Basavraj G. Patil 4/5
7.1875.20-wp.odt
c. The Dy. Education Officer shall release salary /
honorarium payable to the Petitioner with all arrears
within a period of 4 weeks thereafter.
d. The Dy. Director of Education is directed to
include the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth
Pranali within 2 weeks from the date of granting
approval.
e. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above.
f. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
g. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (R.D.DHANUKA, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 5/5
