Bombay High Court
Amit Irana Kharabe vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Dept Of ... on 14 December, 2023
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2023:BHC-AS:38209-DB
914 WP-8369-22.doc
BDP-SPS-TAC
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2023.12.18
WRIT PETITION NO. 8369 OF 2022
19:29:02 +0530
Amit Irana Kharabe )
Age 36 years, Occupation )
service, residing at Nesri, )
Tal. Gadhinglaj, District - Kolhapur ) .... Petitioner.
V/s
1] State of Maharashtra )
Through Department of Education )
having Office at Mantralaya, )
Mumbai 400032. )
)
2] Education Officer (Secondary) )
Zilla Parishad Kolhapur )
)
3] Shikshan Samiti, Kasaba sari )
Taluka : Gadhinglaj )
Dist : Kolhapur Through its )
President/Secretary )
)
4] S.S. High School, Nesari )
Taluka:- Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur )
Through its Headmaster )
)
5] Deputy Director of Education )
Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur ) ....Respondents.
----
Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for the
Petitioner.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
---
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2024 03:07:28 :::
914 WP-8369-22.doc
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ
DATE: 14th DECEMBER, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06/05/2022
passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur, refusing to approve the appointment of the
Petitioner on the post of Naik for two reasons. It has been
stated that by Government Resolution dated 10/06/2010,
there was restriction on appointment of non-teaching staff.
By subsequent Government Resolution dated 12/02/2015,
there was a ban on recruitment with effect from 23/10/2013.
On the premise that post in question was not sanctioned,
approval came to be refused.
3] We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
we have perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute
that the incumbent holding the post of Naik retired on
914 WP-8369-22.doc
31/05/2013 which is prior to 23/10/2013 when restrictions
were sought to be imposed on making recruitment on the
basis of existing staffing pattern. The Petitioner was
appointed on 01/12/2013 on the very same post. The fact
that Government Resolution dated 23/10/2013 seeks to
introduce a new staffing pattern cannot be the reason for not
approving the appointment of the Petitioner to the post that
was already sanctioned and on which an incumbent was
serving, superannuated on 31/5/2013. Recruitment of the
Petitioner on such vacant sanctioned post therefore would
not be affected by the Government Resolution dated
23/10/2013. This issue has been considered by this Court in
decision dated 19/1/2021 in Writ Petition No.3525 of 2019
(Mr. Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.) and also in Writ Petition No.5157 of 2021 (Shrikant
Baburao Walvekar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.)
decided on 28/02/2022.
4] For the aforesaid reasons, we find that rejection of the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
914 WP-8369-22.doc
Petitioner to the post of peon is without justification.
Consequently order dated 06/05/2022 is set aside. In the
light of similar directions issued in the Writ Petitions referred
to hereinabove, it is held that the Petitioner is entitled to
grant of approval to his appointment. Respondent No.2 shall
accordingly pass necessary orders in that regard approving
the appointment of the Petitioner from his initial date of
appointment. Same be done within a period of four weeks
from today. Consequential steps shall be taken for granting
Shalarth ID.
5] Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order
as to costs.
[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
