Bombay High Court
Vinayak Narayan Chopde vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:1169-DB
1 225wp1839.2012..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2012
Vinayak Narayan Chopde (Deceased)
a) Smt. Shruti Srikant Chopade,
Aged about 65 yrs, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. State Bank Colony, Yavatmal
b) Shyam Vinayak Chopade,
Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired,
State Bank Colony, Yavatmal
c) Abhay Vinayak Chopade,
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired,
State Bank Colony, Yavatmal
d) Ravindra Vinayak Chopade,
Aged about 59 yrs, Occ. Retired,
Samarth Nagar, Pune ...... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad Yavatmal,
Godhani Road, Yavatmal
3. The Chief Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal
4. The Head Mistress,
Nagar Parishad Vidyalaya,
Yavatmal .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nikhil Valesh h/f Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. D.M. Kale, counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 225wp1839.2012..odt
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 23.01.2024
JUDGMENT (Per: Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Heard.
2. Having appointed on 2.8.1952 as Assistant Teacher,
the petitioner came to be superannuated on 31.5.1991. After
the petitioner got superannuated, he has expired, as a sequel of
which, his legal representatives are pursuing the present writ
petition.
3. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled for
Selection Grade which benefit is denied as such this petition.
4. It is not in dispute that out of total sanctioned posts
of 12 teachers, only two are entitled for such benefit as quota
of 20% of total sanctioned/approved strength of teaching staff
is prescribed for conferring Selection Grade that too by
following principle of seniority.
5. The fact remains that at the relevant time, the
petitioner was at serial No. 3 in seniority and as such, one Mr.
3 225wp1839.2012..odt
M.N. Yerawar and Mr. M.D. Podutwar were shown to be senior
to petitioner in whose favour Selection Grade was conferred.
6. Even if Mr. Podutwar has expired, it cannot be said
that the petitioner steps into his shoes as the scheme of
conferring Selection Grade cannot be said to be in operation in
perpetuity till the seniority list in which the petitioner was
included is exhausted.
7. The petitioner, in our opinion, has failed to
demonstrate any legal or statutory right.
8. Merely because respondent Municipal Council has
recommended the case of the petitioner for conferment of
Selection Grade, which is subject to approval of the respondent
- Education Officer, he cannot claim that he is entitle for such
benefit. The Education Officer, in such an eventuality, is
required to maintain the prescribed quota of 20% of the total
strength of teachers. That being so, it appears that the
respondent - Education Officer has not accepted the proposal
forwarded by the respondent - Municipal Council of conferring
4 225wp1839.2012..odt
Selection Grade in favour of the petitioner.
9. In the aforesaid background, the challenge raised by
the petitioner, that too after having retired on 31.5.1991 to the
seniority list, in our opinion, at this stage, cannot be looked
into in extra ordinary jurisdiction.
10. We are of the view that the moment, the petitioner
got superannuated, his right to claim Selection Grade or his
placement in Selection Grade extinguishes having missed the
bus on the issue of seniority.
11. The petition, as such, sans merit, same stands
dismissed.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede R. Belkhede,
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Personal Assistant
Date: 30/01/2024 19:13:56
