Zilla Parishad Dhule Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14161 Bom

                                      .. 1 ..

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.14248 OF 2016
                                  IN
                     WRIT PETITION NO.3254 OF 2015

 Zilla Parishad Dhule
 Through Its Education Officer (Primary)
 Mohan Shashikant Desale                                       .. Applicant
        Versus
 The State of Maharashtra
 Through its Secretary and others                             .. Non - Applicants
                                                                / Respondents
                                        ...

 Mr R.S. Pawar, Advocate for the Applicant
 Mr C.T. Jadhav, Advocate for Non - Applicant Nos.4 and 5
                                  ...

                               CORAM            :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                    R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

                               DATE             :   30-09-2021

PER COURT :

1. Mr Pawar, learned Advocate for the review applicant submits

that the order of this Court proceeds on the premise that the Deputy

Director of Education has given permission for advertising the post.

The appointment order at Exh.'A' (page 13 of the petition) shows that

the employee namely Depanjali Chaudhari is appointed on

09-06-2012 and so far the NOC relied is dated 25-09-2012 and at

page no.20 of the writ petition the advertisement is dated

03-06-2013 i.e. appointment is prior to the advertisement, the same

appears to be illegal. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Gajanan

.. 2 ..

Court when the judgment in the review was passed. The Circular

dated 14-10-2014 also instructs that action should be taken against

the School who fails to absorb the surplus teachers. The Zilla

Parishad has absolute right to send the surplus teachers to the

institution where vacancy arises.

2. Mr Jadhav, learned Advocate for the non-applicants submits

that by mistake the advertisement by virtue of which Ms Dipanjali

was appointed was not placed on record and that the advertisement

of another employee appointed pursuant to the said advertisement

was only placed. The same was a mistake. The petitioner

(non-applicant nos.4 & 5 herein) has placed on record both the

advertisements pursuant to which the employees were appointed.

3. This Court in the Judgment under review has observed that the

Education Officer ought not to have raised the issue of surplus

teachers as Deputy Director of Education who is an higher authority

to Education Officer has already granted permission to fill in two

posts. The Court while delivering the judgment under review has

considered sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and the roster

and has passed the order. We do not find any error apparent on face

Gajanan

.. 3 ..

of the record. The review application, as such, is disposed of.

4. The Education Officer shall decide the said proposal as directed

by this Court in the judgment under review, preferably within three

months.

     ( R. N. LADDHA )                         ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
          JUDGE                                         JUDGE
                                      ...




Gajanan