Bombay High Court
Sunita Sanjay Pardhi vs The Deputy Director Of Education, ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
2023:BHC-NAG:12653-DB
1/4 957.wp.2299.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2299/2023
Sou. Sunita Sanjay Pardhi,
Aged about 39 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. Belati, Post Kesalwada,
Tahsil Tiroda, District Gondia. ----PETITIONER
--VERSUS--
1. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Tahsil & District Gondia.
3. Tarachand Khadse Magasvargiya
Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nagpur,
Through its President
Shri Pawan Harish More,
R/o. Near Government Hospital, Tiroda,
Tahsil Tiroda, District Gondia. ----RESPONDENTS
Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. Asavari Kale, Advocate and Mr. R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent
No.3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 24, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. One Ku. Rajlaxmi Patle came to be appointed as an Assistant
Teacher at the respondent No.3 - School run by the Education Society.
2/4 957.wp.2299.23.odt
Her services came to be terminated after holding an enquiry. The order of
termination is dated 09.12.2013. At the relevant time, the said employee
was holding the post of Head of the said School. The said employee
preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal for challenging the order of
termination. In the meanwhile, since two other senior Assistant Teachers
were not inclined to hold the post of Head, the School sought permission
from the Education Officer (Secondary) to fill in the said post.
Accordingly, on 26.12.2013, the Deputy Director of Education conveyed its
approval to the Education Officer (Secondary) and permitted filling in the
said post through recruitment. Accordingly, on 28.12.2013, an
advertisement was issued seeking to fill in the post of Head of the Girls
School. The petitioner was duly selected on the said post and was issued
an order of appointment dated 03.01.2014. On 18.08.2018, regular
approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Head subject
to the condition that she would obtain the required qualification within a
period of 5 years. The petitioner has accordingly obtained that
qualification and is continuing as Head of the said School.
3. The School Tribunal vide judgment dated 10.03.2023 allowed
the appeal preferred by Ku. Patle and directed her to be reinstated. The
Management did not challenge the order passed by the School Tribunal.
With a view to implement the order of the School Tribunal, the petitioner
was required to vacate the post of Head-Mistress to enable Ku. Patle to be
3/4 957.wp.2299.23.odt
reinstated. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner sought steps to be
taken since she was rendered surplus at the School. By this writ petition,
the petitioner prays that her services be accommodated in some other
School.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we
have perused the documents on record. The petitioner seeks to rely upon
the decision in Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav Vs. Pratibha Patil Mahila
Mahamandal and Ors. [2013(2) Mh.L.J. 484] as well as the decision in
Writ Petition No. 1347/2017 (Umashankar Tantuji Harinkhede Vs. The
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Ors.) to submit
that in such situation the services of the petitioner ought to be absorbed by
placing her in the list of surplus teachers.
5. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader that since the petitioner was appointed to
fill in the vacancy caused due to the termination of the services of
Ku. Patle, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of the order of
reinstatement.
6. We find that the Division Bench in Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav
(supra) has considered similar issue and has directed that the services of
the employee appointed on the post held by a teacher whose services were
terminated and thereafter directed to be reinstated ought to be taken in
4/4 957.wp.2299.23.odt
the surplus teachers list. It is found that the ratio of the aforesaid decision
squarely applies to the facts of the present case. It is to be noted that
while granting permission on 26.12.2013, the Deputy Director of
Education did not impose any condition that the appointment should be
made as a stop-gap measure. Neither the order of appointment of the
petitioner nor the order of approval indicates the same. In these
circumstances, the petitioner can not be prejudiced by the order of
reinstatement of the earlier incumbent.
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the services of the
petitioner shall be placed in the list of surplus teachers for being absorbed
in accordance with the provision of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The respondent Nos. 1 and
2 to take necessary steps in that regard. Such steps be taken within a
period of four weeks from receiving copy of this judgment.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/08/2023 18:34:16
