Bombay High Court
Ashwini Yogesh Shete vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 26 October, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BASAVRAJ
GURAPPA
PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6897/2021
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
PATIL
Date: 2021.10.27
14:53:27 +0530
Ashwini Yogesh Shete ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6903/2021
Nicholas Piedade Rodrigues ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6901/2021
Yogesh Madhukar Shirke ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6902/2021
Pratik Vidyasagar Patil ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Petitioners
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, AGP for the State
Basavraj G. Patil 1/7
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
CORAM: R.D.DHANUKA &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 26, 2021
P.C.
1 The matters are placed on board for speaking to the
minutes of order dated 20.10.2021 on the praecipe filed by
the learned counsel for the Petitioners.
2 On first page of the said order, in cause title the
number of 4th Writ Petition No.6897/2021 shall be
corrected as 6902/2021.
3 First four lines of paragraph 5 be substituted as under:
"5. It is not in dispute that the approval was
granted to the appointment of the Petitioners by the
Education Officer on non teaching posts on 17.03.2019
in Writ Petition No.6897/2021, on 26.02.2019 in Writ
Petition No.6903/2021, on 03.09.2019 in Writ Petition
NO.6901/2021 and on 06.07.2019 in Writ Petition
No.6902/2021."
4 The order dated 20.10.2021 stands corrected
accordingly. The praecipe stands disposed of.
5 After corrections in paragraph the corrected order
dated 20.10.2021 shall read thus:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6897/2021
Basavraj G. Patil 2/7
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
Ashwini Yogesh Shete ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6903/2021
Nicholas Piedade Rodrigues ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6901/2021
Yogesh Madhukar Shirke ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6902/2021
Pratik Vidyasagar Patil ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Petitioners
Mrs. P.J.Gavhane, AGP with Ms. K.N.Solunke, AGP, Mrs. S. S.
Bhende, AGP, Mr. N. C. Walimbe, AGP for the State
CORAM: R.D.DHANUKA &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 20, 2021
Basavraj G. Patil 3/7
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
P.C.
1 Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, on
instructions, seeks liberty to delete Respondent Nos. 4 and
5.
2 Leave to amend is granted. Amendment shall be
carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.
3 Rule.
By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final
disposal.
The learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos.1
to 3.
4 By these petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners impugned the show
cause notices dated 08.02.2021 and order dated
22.09.2020.
5 It is not in dispute that the approval was granted
to the appointment of the Petitioners by the Education
Officer on non teaching posts on 17.03.2019 in Writ
Petition No.6897/2021, on 26.02.2019 in Writ Petition
No.6903/2021, on 03.09.2019 in Writ Petition
NO.6901/2021 and on 06.07.2019 in Writ Petition
No.6902/2021. After such approval was granted by the
Education Officer, the Dy. Director of Education has refused
to enter the name of the Petitioner in Shalarth Pranali and
issued show cause notice.
Basavraj G. Patil 4/7
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
6 Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the Petitioners in
this bunch of petitions, invited our attention to the
judgment of this Court declared on 23.08.2021 in Writ
Petition No.2003/2020 in the case of Vilas J. Londe Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. and tendered a copy of order
dated 08.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.11244/2019 in the case of Sanjay Pandurang Powar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and other companion matters and
would submit that this Court has already held that once an
approval is granted by the Education Officer to the
appointment of the Petitioners on non teaching posts, the
Dy. Director of Education has no jurisdiction to refuse to
enter the name of the employees in Shalarth Pranali. He
further submits that the Government Resolutions referred
to and relied upon in the impugned orders dated 22.09.2020
in each of the petitions are not applicable to the Petitioners.
He submits that the validity of the similar orders has been
already dealt with by this Court in the above referred
judgments and it is categorically held that none of the
Government Resolutions are applicable. Even otherwise,
the learned AGP for the State could not distinguish the
judgment of this Court in the case of Vikas Londe (supra)
and Sanjay Pawar (supra).
7 In our view, both these judgments and orders would
squarely apply to the facts of the present cases. We do not
propose to take a different view in the matter. The Dy.
Director of Education could not have refused to enter the
names of the Petitioners in Shalarth Pranali once the
Education Officer has already granted approval. The
Basavraj G. Patil 5/7
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
impugned order passed by the Dy. Director of Education on
22.09.2020 is contrary to the principles and law laid down
by this court in the above judgment and order. The show
cause notices issued by the Dy. Director of Education are
also without jurisdiction.
8 In our view, neither the above referred judgment /
orders are challenged nor stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It is noticed by this Court that though this Court has
repeatedly taken a view that once an approval is granted by
the Education Officer, the Dy. Director of Education could
not have refused to enter the names of the employees in the
Shalarth Pranali and could not have refused to issue
Shalarth ID by passing cyclostyled orders that have been
passed by the Dy. Director of Education, contrary to the
principles and law laid down by this Court.
9 We hope that the learned AGP would issue appropriate
directions to the Dy. Director of Education as well as the
concerned officer to comply with the orders passed by this
Court who shall not pass such orders, contrary to the law
laid down by this Court, in future and to avoid further
litigation at the cost of public exchequer and to save time of
this Court.
10 We, accordingly, pass the following order.
a. The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
Basavraj G. Patil 6/7
5.6897.21-wp+.odt
b. Respondent No.2 shall enter the names of the
Petitioners in Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID
to each of the Petitioners within 4 weeks from today.
c. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
d. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
e. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the
office of Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra
to look into the matter seriously and issue appropriate
directions.
f. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (R.D.DHANUKA, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 7/7
