Bombay High Court
Piraji Sayanna Urekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 February, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
1
3405.18WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 WRIT PETITION NO.3405 OF 2018
PIRAJI SAYANNA UREKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
...
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.V.S.Panpatte
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.S.Shinde
Advocate for Respondent nos. 3 and 4 : Mr.H.S.Bali.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.G.DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 09.02.2022
P.C. :
1] The petitioner is challenging the order rejecting
proposal seeking approval to the appointment. The said
proposal is rejected by the Education Officer [Secondary]
under order dated 25.01.2018.
2] We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned AGP.
3] Along with the affidavit, the Education Officer
has filed copy of judgment dated 1st April, 2016 delivered by
the School Tribunal in Appeal No.20/2014 preferred by the
petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal for grant of
provisional approval and release of honorarium against the
Education Officer of the School and the management.
3405.18WP
4] In the said Appeal, the School Tribunal framed
following points for determination :
Points for determination Findings
1. Whether appellant proves that, Yes
respondent No.3 school is a private
recognized school?
2. Whether appellant proves that, on No
23.01.2012 the respondent
management duly appointed him in
respondent No.3 school on clear,
vacant, permanent and open post of
Sahayyak Shikshak?
3. Whether appellant proves that, No
inspite of submission of proposal of
his appointment with respondent
No.1 Education Officer (Secondary)
and inspite of issuing reminders
dated 27.02.2013 & 06.03.2013,
the respondent No.1 Education
Officer (Secondary) arbitrarily &
illegally is not granting the same?
4. Whether appellant proves that, the Yes
Tribunal has jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the appeal?
5. Whether appellant is entitled to get No
reliefs of issuing directions to
respondent No.1 Education Officer
(Secondary), to grant provisional
approval to his said appointment as
3405.18WP
Sahayyak Shikshak in respondent
No.3 school on probation w.e.f.
23.01.2012, release honorarium @
Rs.8,000/- per month, grant
approval as an Assistant Teacher
and pay the salary as claimed?
6. What order? As per final
order.
5] Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The School Tribunal specifically came to the conclusion that
appellant / present petitioner is not duly appointed in
respondent no.3 School on clear, vacant and permanent
post.
6] In view of judicial order passed by the School
Tribunal holding the petitioner is not duly appointed by
respondent no.3 on clear vacant post, the Education Officer
certainly could not have taken a different view.
7] In the light of that, the impugned order passed
by the Education Officer needs no interference.
8] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner did not challenge the order of School
Tribunal as subsequently the Education Officer has passed
the impugned order. The petitioner be given liberty to
challenge the order of the School Tribunal. It is not for this
3405.18WP
Court to grant liberty if the final orders are passed. The
same can be assailed in accordance with law. For that
purpose, no separate order has to be passed in respect of
liberty. It is for the petitioner to claim benefit of
proceedings filed before the wrong forum.
9] Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
[S.G.DIGE, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]
DDC
