Bombay High Court
Ku. Karuna D/O Premdas Belekar vs The Additional Tribal ... on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp 4404.17. 1/3 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4404/2017
Ku. Karuna V the Additional tribal Commissioner, Nagpur and others
*************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*************************************************************************************
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv for petitioner.
Mr. Deshpande, Adv for resp. nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for resp. no.1.
CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 15-02-2023
The petition challenges the order dated
16-09-16 (pg 31) and the order dated 1-4-17 (pg 36),
whereby the claim of the petitioner for being appointed
as Headmistress of the school being run by respondent
no. 2 in place of respondent no. 3 has been denied, on
the ground that when the offer was made she had
declined to accept the same.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the offer was conditional, for that
reason the same was not accepted and therefore, such
non acceptance cannot come in her way. Learned
Counsel places reliance upon Javed Iqbal s/ Chhotebabu
vs Adminstrator, Jawahar Urdu High School, Ashti and
others 2006(1) MHLJ 635 and Kamal d/o Bansidhar
Ghatol vs Sawate Education Society, Belkhed and
others, 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 675.
wp 4404.17. 2/3 4
3. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for
respondent nos. 2 and 3, supports the impugned order
by opposing the contention that the offer was
unconditional and so also states that the denial by the
petitioner, to accept the offer was also unconditional as
a result of which the respondent no.3 was appointed as
the Headmaster.
4. Learned AGP supports the impugned
orders.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the
relevant time in the year 2003 was the senior-most
teacher in the school run by respondent no. 2, which is a
primary school and therefore the provisions of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981
would clearly not be attracted and therefore the
reliance placed upon Javed Iqbal and Kamal (supra) is
misplaced as the matter in these two judgments was on
the basis of the Rules framed therein. That apart the
communication dated 8-8-2003 (pg 108) indicates that
the offer made to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2
to occupy the post of Headmistress was unconditional.
As against this the affidavit dated 01-09-2003 by the
petitioner, to the Project Officer, Tribal Development
Department Chandrapur, which is at page 109 would
indicate that the petitioner had declined to accept the
post not on account of the offer being conditional, but
wp 4404.17. 3/3 4
on account of her being a lady due to which she found
herself in-capable of handling the post of Headmistress.
6. In the year 2011 also the petitioner was
again offered the post of Headmistress in pursuance to
which the petitioner had also written a communication
to the Project Officer dated 23-08-11 in this regard
(pg 114) accompanied with an affidavit to that effect
(pg 116) which is in the same vein as that of the
affidavit dated 1-09-2003, declining to accept the post
of Headmistress. It is therefore quite apparent that
neither the offer was unconditional nor the denial
conditional. This would clearly indicate that the
petitioner has voluntarily declined to accept the offer of
being Headmistress when the same was offered to her
twice.
7. This being the position, I do not see any
reason to interfere in the impugned orders. The petition
is therefore devoid of any merit and accordingly
dismissed.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
