Bombay High Court
Mansi Vijay Karekar Nee (Smt. ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 5 Ors on 11 August, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Madhav J. Jamdar
36.WP.1507.2019.doc
BASAVRAJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GURAPPA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PATIL
Digitally signed by WRIT PETITION NO.1507 OF 2019
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
PATIL
Date: 2022.08.12
12:48:56 +0530
Mansi Vijay Karekar
nee Nagvekar Pramodini Digambar .... Petitioner
Versus
President / Secretary
Pradnya Prabodhan Sanstha & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. S. C. Naidu I/b. Nasir M. Shaikh for the Petitioner
Ms. Deepali Deherkar for Respondent Nos.5 and 6
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2022
P.C. :
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
Advocate for the Management.
2 The Management's proposal for declaring the Petitioner as
surplus has been negated, basically on the ground that the Petitioner
is not approved teacher and in view of that the Petitioner cannot be
absorbed. A reference is made to Rule 25 and 26 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It
was pointed out that the Petitioner was terminated from service.
36.WP.1507.2019.doc
The Petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal bearing
Appeal No.5 of 1996. The School Tribunal set aside the order of
termination and directed reinstatement with continuity in service.
The said order of the School Tribunal is challenged by the
Management. The Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the
settlement arrived at between the Management and the Petitioner.
The order of the High Court was again assailed by the State as well
as the Management before the apex court. The said SLPs filed by the
Management and the Sate were dismissed.
3 In light of that, the order of the School Tribunal became final.
The School Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was
duly qualified to be appointed as a Drawing Teacher. It appears that
the Petitioner continued with the Respondent School till 2018. The
proposal was submitted by the Management for declaring the
Petitioner as surplus.
4 Once it has been held by the judicial order that the Petitioner is
duly appointed on the post and is qualified for the post, the order of
termination is set aside and the judicial order has become final upto
the apex court, the Education Inspector would not have sat over the
order of the School Tribunal which is confirmed by the apex
36.WP.1507.2019.doc
court. It is not the case that the post on which the Petitioner was
working, was not approved post. The reason given is that the
appointment of the Petitioner was not approved.
5 In view of the fact that the order of the School Tribunal has
been confirmed by the apex court, now that cannot be gone into.
6 The proposal of the Petitioner certainly will have to be
considered for absorption considering him to be surplus.
7 In light of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
8 The Education Inspector shall consider the Petitioner for
absorption in other school, as may be permissible under the law. The
Education Officer has to consider the judgment of the School
Tribunal, confirmed upto the apex court and decision with regard to
the absorption shall be taken preferably within three months.
9 The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
