Bombay High Court
Pratidnya Trimbakrao Chavan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
909-910wp4893-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 WRIT PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2024
PRATIDNYA TRIMBAKRAO CHAVAN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
AND
910 WRIT PETITION NO. 4901 OF 2024
JYOTI SONAJIRAO BIRADAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. S. G. Karlekar and Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V. M. Kagne and Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGPs for the Respondents State
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 6th August, 2024
ORDER:
1. On 8th May, 2024, we had passed the following order:
"1. These are two cases, by way of yet another examples of
bystanders or persons unconnected with the organizations,
leveling allegations or making bald and reckless allegations as
regards the recruitment process and the Deputy Director of
Education, as if he is subservient to these organizations, initiates
an inquiry.
2. The case before us is with regard to the Nutan
Vidyalaya Shikshan Sanstha. Initially, an outfit with the registered
title as lqtku ukxfjd vU;k; o Hkz"Vkpkj fojks/kh tutkxzrh o fueqZyu lferh
whose President is Shrinivas Radhakishan Ughade, lodged a
909-910wp4893-24
complaint to the Commissioner of Education, Maharashtra Pune
dated 07.06.2022, making allegations that 42 posts have been
illegally filled in. He threatened fasten to death. The Deputy
Director Education, Aurangabad Division constituted an Inquiry
Committee. A report dated 05.09.2022 is generated and it was
concluded that there is no truth in the allegations made by Mr.
Ughade.
3. Another outfit registered under title of "vkWy bafM;k
iWaFkj lsuk, fonzksgkpk foLQksV dj.kkjk caM[kksj", egkjk"Vª v/;{k % fouksn HkksGs
and jk"Vªh; v/;{k % fnid dsnkj lodged a complaint with the
Education Officer (Secondary) dated 07.11.2023. In this
complaint, allegations were not only made as regards alleged
illegal appointments and involvement of Rs. 35 to 40 lacs per
appointment, allegations were made even against the Education
Department. This complaint was lodged through Kiran Lokhande.
4. On this complaint, the Respondent No. 3 constituted
one more Committee. The Committee will now proceed to
investigate the appointments. Shri. Kiran Lokhande, has now
written to the Education Officer (Secondary) Z. P., Parbhani and
submits that he is satisfied by the investigation made by the
Education Officer (Secondary), who has perused the records and
his misunderstanding has been fully cleared. He, therefore,
desires to withdraw the complaint.
5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that
the inquiry at the behest of the said Committee has still not been
called of.
909-910wp4893-24
6. Issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4,
returnable on 18th June, 2024. The learned AGPs waives service of
notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4/State. For the
present, as Respondent No. 3 is a Committee, we have not issued
notice, since it is a formal party.
7. Until further orders, Respondent No. 4 would convey
to the Committee that further inquiry at the behest of the
Committee on the basis of the complaint, which has now been
withdrawn, shall stand stayed. Needless to state, since the
appointment of these Petitioners have been approved by the
Competent Authorities of the Education Department, the
Education Department shall not issue an order of canceling the
approval, only for the cause taken up in these Petitions. "
2. Despite passing of the extensive order as reproduced above,
we find that Shri Anil Sampatrao Sabale, Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad is still proceeding with the complaint
filed by a stranger claiming to be a City President of 'All India Panther
Sena- Vidrohacha Visphot Karnara Bandkhor'. Despite an approval of
the appointment granted years ago, based on a complaint containing
reckless allegations, received by the Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, the approval granted to these Petitioners is put
in jeopardy. To add to their agonies, the Deputy Director of Education
is now refusing to grant Shalarth ID on the pretext of there being
certain deficiency. As a consequence, the Petitioners are not paid their
salaries, through the Shalarth mode.
909-910wp4893-24
3. It is a settled law that once the approval is granted, merely
because a different officer takes over or a new Deputy Director of
Education assumes charge, the approvals cannot be dug into and
reopened, thereby causing jeopardy to the Petitioners. They are not
receiving their salary as per the pay scales granted and approved, only
because their names are not entered in the Shalarth ID.
4. Though the learned AGP has strenuously tried to impress
upon us that the Deputy Director of Education is not influenced by the
complaint filed by the All India Panther Sena, we feel that the complaint
has weighed on his mind. Prima facie, we are of the view that there
seems to be some pressure on the Deputy Director of Education, due to
which, he is conducting himself in an unbecoming manner. An Enquiry
Committee has been constituted for enquiring into the approvals
granted to these petitioners.
5. The order passed by this Court at the Principal Seat dated
21.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 8966 of 2021 (Amol Baban Sangar Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & others), is placed on record before us,
wherein, the Court has observed in Paragraph No. 8 , 9, 10 and 11 as
under:
"8. Before parting with the judgment, we must place on
record our displeasure to the way such an issue of inclusion of
name of the school employees in Shalarth system is being dealt
909-910wp4893-24
with by the Officers of Education Department of the State of
Maharashtra. It must be borne in mind by all the concerned
officers that the Shalarth system was brought into vogue as per
the Government Resolution dated 7/11/2012 and the only
object of the Government Resolution was to streamline the
system of payment of salary to the school employees and to
bring complete uniformity and transparency in payment of
salary by all schools. There is no other purpose which is sought
to be achieved by Shalarth system of computerized payment of
salary. Nowhere in the Government Resolution is there any
clause which requires the Deputy Director, Education, for that
matter any other Officer of the State, to reconsider the issue of
grant of approval, nor does the Government Resolution vests
any Officer with any authority to review the order of grant of
approval to the appointment of any school employee by the
Education Officer and then decide about inclusion or otherwise
of the name of such school employee in the Shalarth system.
Besides, the power of review of any administrative order, if at
all it exists, must be expressly created in the applicable statute
because it has the potential of taking away a right vested in a
school employee. In such a case, the power of review cannot be
conferred by any Government Resolution which is in the
nature of executive instruction. Of course, here the
Government Resolution in question dated 7/11/2012 does not
create any such power of review in the Deputy Director,
Education and therefore, the Deputy Director, Education in any
case, cannot examine the legality or otherwise of the approval
granted to the appointment of any school employee, on the
pretext of deciding the question of inclusion of name of the
employee in Shalarth system. Proper course for him is to
909-910wp4893-24
confine himself to parameters of the said Government
Resolution and satisfy himself as to whether or not the
employee fulfills the conditions of the Government Resolution.
If he sees that the employees fulfills the conditions, he must
direct inclusion of name of such employee in the system. If he
feels that employee does not fulfill them, he may reject the
proposal. His rejection, if it is there, however, cannot be for
any consideration other than the consideration arising from the
conditions stipulated in the Government Resolution dated
7/11/2012.
9. Unfortunately, the Government Resolution dated
7/11/2012 is not being followed in it's letter and spirit and
time and again, this Court is coming across several Writ
Petitions raising a common grievance that the Deputy Director,
Education has refused to include name of a school employee or
a teacher on a consideration extraneous to the Government
Resolution dated 7/11/2012. Undoubtedly, the ground of
irregular grant of approval to the appointment of any school
employee by the Education Officer, which is taken by the
Education Officer for refusing to include the name of such
employee in Shalarth system is something which is completely
alien to the Government Resolution dated 7/11/2012 and it
could never be taken recourse to by the Deputy Director,
Education for recording his refusal in such a matter.
10. We therefore request Respondent No.1 to issue necessary
instructions to all the Authorities regarding strict adherence to
the Government Resolution dated 7/11/2012 and to not travel
beyond the parameters set out in the Government Resolution
909-910wp4893-24
dated 7/11/2012 while considering the matters pertaining to
grant of approval for inclusion of names of the school
employees in the Shalarth system.
11. We also request Respondent No.1 to bring to the notice of
all the concerned Authorities the observations made herein
above so that time of school employees, school management
and officers of the Government would not be unnecessarily
wasted in litigation, which otherwise is avoidable.
6. In view of the above, as an interim measure, we direct the
Deputy Director of Education to grant the Shalarth ID to all of these
Petitioners within ten days from today. Their salary shall be paid
through the Shalarth Pranali. Such grant of Shalarth ID shall be
subject to the result of this Petition.
7. We direct the Deputy Director of Education- Shri Anil
Sampatrao Sabale, not to entertain any complaint from any political
outfits, bystanders or those wholly unconnected with the Educational
Institutions, until further orders from this Court. If the Deputy Director
desires to go into the approval granted to any teacher, he shall first
verify the records and he shall refrain from entertaining complaints
from any strangers as directed above.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
JPChavan
