Bombay High Court
Sandeep Manohar Mirajkar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 22 September, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
1 8. WP 2817-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2817 OF 2021
Sandeep Manohar Mirajkar and Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
-------
Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, Learned AGP for State- Respondents.
-------
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER 2021
P.C. :
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for respondents. Petition is
heard finally, by consent of parties.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners has impugned the order dated 16 th February 2017
passed by the Education Officer refusing to grant approval to the
appointment of petitioner no.1 for the post of peon in the petitioner
no.3-school run by the petitioner no. 2.
Nikita Gadgil 1 of 5
2 8. WP 2817-21.odt
3. It is not disputed that petitioner no. 1 was appointed to the
said post of peon after following due procedure with effect from 2 nd
December 2011. Petitioners no. 2 and 3 submitted a proposal for the
appointment of petitioner no. 1 on 31st December 2011.
4. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that respondent no.
2 while rejecting the approval has relied upon the Government
Resolutions dated 12th February 2015, 6th September 1999, 6th
February 2012 and 20th June 2014.
5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the resolutions dated 12th February 2015, 6th February 2012
and 20th June 2014 which are pressed in service by the Education
officer were issued after the date of appointment of the petitioner
no.1 with effect from 31st December 2011. Inso far as, Government
Resolution dated 6th September 1999 is concerned, it is submitted
that there is no camp since the date of the said resolution and thus
the said resolution dated 6th September 1999 could not have been
pressed in service in the impugned order.
Nikita Gadgil 2 of 5
3 8. WP 2817-21.odt
6. Learned counsel invited our attention to an unreported
judgment delivered on 19th January 2021 in the case of Mr.
Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors in
Writ Petition No. 3525/2019 and submits that these three
resolutions would apply with prospective effect and not
retrospective effect. Learned AGP could not distinguish the said
judgment dated 19th January 2021 in case of Shrikrishna Bhikaji
Bondge (Supra) and could not dispute the fact that petitioner no.1
was appointed for the post of peon with effect from 2 nd December
2011.
7. In our view, the Government Resolutions dated 12 th December
2015, 6th February 2012 and 20th January 2014 would not apply
with retrospective effect and thus, would not apply to the
appointment of petitioner no. 1 made with effect from 2 nd December
2011. The reliance placed on those three resolutions by the learned
Education officer (Secondary) in impugned order, is without
application of mind and shows perversity. Insofar as, the reliance
placed on Government Resolution dated 6th September 1999 is
concerned, since there is no camp, no reliance on the said
Government Resolution could be placed by the Education officer.
Nikita Gadgil 3 of 5
4 8. WP 2817-21.odt
8. The impugned order passed by the Education Officer is
contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Court in case of
Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge (Supra) and in catena of decisions
taking the same view and thus, deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
9. We accordingly pass the following order:-
a) The impugned order dated 16th February 2017 is
quashed and set aside.
b) The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to
appointment of petitioner no.1 to the said post of peon with
effect from 2nd December 2011, within four weeks from the
date of communication of this order.
c) We also direct respondent no.2 to release grant in aid of
payment of salary of petitioner no.1 since the date of his
initial appointment with all consequential benefits, which
shall be released within four weeks from the date of
granting approval to the appointment of petitioner no.1 for
the said post.
d) The name of the petitioner no.1 shall be also entered in
the Shalarth Pranali within two weeks from the date of
Nikita Gadgil 4 of 5
5 8. WP 2817-21.odt
granting approval without fail.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
11. Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
12. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
Nikita Gadgil 5 of 5
