Bombay High Court
Nitin Nagesh Kamble vs Santosh Shrimant Mane And Ors on 30 November, 2023
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Digitally signed by
RAMESHWAR RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN LAXMAN DILWALE
2023:BHC-AS:35826-DB
DILWALE Date: 2023.12.02
15:16:53 +0200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7784 OF 2022
Shri. Santosh Shrimant Mane }
Age-47 years, Occu : service, }
r/a, 3/6, Ravivar Solapur-413005. }
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra }
Through the Secretary, }
School Education and Sports Department, }
Having Office at mantralaya, }
Mumbai - 400 032. }
2. The Education Officer (Secondary) }
Z.P. Solapur-413002. }
3. The Superintendent, }
Pay and Provident Fund Unit Squad (Primary) }
Z.P. Solapur, }
Sahastrarjun Mangal Karyalay, Solapur-413001 }
4. The Dy. Director of Education, }
Pune Division, Pune }
17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, infront of Red Temple }
Pune-411001. }
5. The President/Secretary, }
Onkar Krida Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, }
3/6, Ravivar, Solapur-413005 }
6. Shri. Gajanan Vidyalay, }
Vinayak Nagar, M.I.D.C. Road, }
Solapur-413006. }
...Respondents
1/4
10-WP-7784-22 WITH IA-3671-23.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 08:33:40 :::
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3671 OF 2022
Shri. Nitin Nagesh Kamble }
Age : 40 years, Occ.: Service, }
R/o. 296/97, Shivganga Nagar, }
Parshi Vihir, Kumtha Naka, }
Solapur-413003. }
. ..Applicant
...
Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the Petitioner
Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar for Applicant/Intervenor.
Ms. Rekha Musale for Respondent nos. 4 & 5.
Ms. Priyanka Chavan a/w Ms. Priya Mehra for Respondent Nos.2
& 3.
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ
DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard learned
counsel for the parties. The Petitioner claims to have been
appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher. His appointment
was approved pursuant to the order dated 22/01/2009. The
period of approval on no grant basis was from 01/06/1996 to
30/06/2008. From 01/07/2008, he was shown on a sanctioned
grant-in-post. Thereafter on 02/03/2016 his appointment was
approved from 27/08/2015 onwards. The grievance of the
Petitioner is that by communication dated 09/08/2021 his salary
has been withheld by the order passed by the Education Officer
10-WP-7784-22 WITH IA-3671-23.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
(Primary). According to the Education Officer, in view of a
complaint received by his office on 10/02/2021 as regards
validity of the Petitioner's appointment, an enquiry was
contemplated to be held and hence, the Petitioner's salary was
withheld.
2. Civil Application no.3671 of 2022 has been filed by the
earlier Headmaster stating therein that the approval granted to
the Petitioner does not appear to be genuine for the reason that
the Petitioner passed his Higher Secondary School Certificate
Examination in March 1993. Hence, the Petitioner could not have
been appointed prior to the date. It is to be noted that on receipt
of a complaint received by the Education Officer (Primary), a
preliminary enquiry was held and report has now forwarded by
the Education Officer of the Zilha Parishad.
3. In these facts, the interests of justice would be served by
passing the following order.
ORDER
i) The Petitioner, the Headmaster of the School as
well as the Applicant in Civil Application no.3671 of
2023 shall appear before the Education Officer
(Primary) and place before him all relevant
documents for consideration. The Education Officer
10-WP-7784-22 WITH IA-3671-23.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
(Primary) shall consider all relevant material and take
a decision thereafter as regards entitlement of the
Petitioner to his salary. To enable such consideration
the parties shall appear before the Education Officer
(Primary) on 11/12/2023. Within a Period of 6 weeks
from that date, the Education Officer (Primary) shall
take decision on the aforesaid issue.
ii) Needless to state that any party aggrieved by
such decision would be at liberty to challenge the
same in accordance with law. All points raised are
kept open.
4. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Interim Application
is also disposed of.
[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J] [A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
10-WP-7784-22 WITH IA-3671-23.doc
Rameshwar Dilwale
