Bombay High Court
Wajeed Imtiyaj Tarlekar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Prin. Sec. ... on 30 November, 2023
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Digitally signed by
RAMESHWAR RAMESHWAR
2023:BHC-AS:35825-DB
LAXMAN LAXMAN DILWALE
DILWALE Date: 2023.12.02
15:17:47 +0200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11513 OF 2022
1. Wahid Ikram Naikwadi }
Age 23 years, Occupation :Service }
Residing at Naikwadi Building }
High School Road, Miraj, Tal : Miraj }
District Sangli 416 410 }
2. Azad Shikshan Sanstha }
Having its office at 5883 }
Highschool Road, }
Miraj, District : Sangli 416 410 }
through its President/Secretary }
3. Jawahar High School And Junior college }
Having its office at 399/3 }
Shastri Chowk, Jawahar Nagar }
Miraj, District : Sangli 416 410 }
Through its Head Master }..Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
Through the Principal Secretary }
Department of School Education }
Having office at Mantralaya, }
Mumbai 400 032 }
2. Deputy Director of Education, }
Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur }
3. Education Officer (Secondary) }
Zilla Parishad, Sangli }Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.11594 OF 2022
1.Mr.Wajeed Imtiyaj Tarlekar }
Age 29 years, Occupation : Service }
1/5
11&12-WP-11513-22 and WP-11594-22.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 08:33:31 :::
Residing at Guruwar Peth }
Miraj, Tal : Miraj }
District : Sangli 416 410 }
2. Azad Shikshan Sanstha }
Having its office at 5883 }
Highschool Road, }
Miraj, District : Sangli 416 410 }
through its President/Secretary }
3. Jawahar High School And Junior college }
Having its office at 399/3 }
Shastri Chowk, Jawahar Nagar }
Miraj, District : Sangli 416 410 }
Through its Head Master }..Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
Through the Principal Secretary }
Department of School Education }
Having office at Mantralaya, }
Mumbai 400 032 }
2. Deputy Director of Education, }
Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur }
3. Education Officer (Secondary) }
Zilla Parishad, Sangli }Respondents
...
Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for the Petitioners in above both Writ
Petitions.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/11594/2022.
Mr.R.P.Kadam, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/11513/2022.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ
DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2023.
2/5
11&12-WP-11513-22 and WP-11594-22.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 08:33:31 :::
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR,J)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner no.1 came to be appointed on the post of
Junior Clerk on 01/01/2021 with the Petitioner no.3-school. The
proposal for grant of approval came to be rejected by the
Education Officer (Secondary) for the reason that there was a
ban pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 04/05/2020.
4. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, though
such ban on recruitment was operating pursuant to Government
Resolution dated 04/05/2020, as observed by the co-ordinate
Bench in its judgment dated 26th April 2023 in Writ Petition (St)
No. 4493/2022 in the matter of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal
& Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others the post
in question cannot perpetually remain vacant. Since the
Petitioner no.1 was appointed after following the due process of
law, the ban on recruitment could not have been put forth to
refuse consideration of the proposal for grant of approval.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon
11&12-WP-11513-22 and WP-11594-22.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Education Officer,
Secondary stating therein that the proposal was rejected only for
that reason.
6. The issue with regard to refusal to grant approval in view of
the ban on recruitment pursuant to Government Resolution
dated 04/05/2020 has been the matter of consideration by this
Court in various Writ Petitions. In the case of Gramvikas
Shikshan Mandal & Ors (supra), this Court has observed that
such posts cannot be permitted to be kept vacant for an
indefinite period. The facts of the present case indicate that the
recruitment has been made on 01/01/2021, during which time
the pandemic situation had partly subsided. We find in addition
that the Petitioner no.3 School is a minority institution and
therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct reconsideration of
the proposal seeking such approval.
7. Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The order dated 25/11/2021 passed by the Education
Officer (Secondary) refusing to grant approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner no.1 is set aside. The
11&12-WP-11513-22 and WP-11594-22.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
Education Officer (Secondary) to reconsider the proposal
dated 29/11/2021 in accordance with law. He shall not
reject the same by relying upon the Government
Resolution dated 04/05/2020. Necessary decision on said
proposal be taken within period of 8 weeks of providing
copy of this judgment.
(ii) Needless to state that in case the appointment of the
Petitioners is approved, the Deputy Director of Education,
shall take all consequential steps including grant of
Shalarth number in accordance with law.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs. Writ petitions are disposed of.
[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J] [A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
11&12-WP-11513-22 and WP-11594-22.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
