Bombay High Court
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:9996-DB
8-WP-1380-2020.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 of 2020
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mul, through its
President, Advocate Babasaheb Wasade and others. ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra, through it Secretary, Department
of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and others. ...RESPONDENTS
........
Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. D. P. Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
.........
CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE :- 4th SEPTEMBER, 2024
P. C.
Heard.
2. The petitioner nos. 4 and 5 were appointed by the petitioner no.1
in the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 schools. After the appointments were made,
a request was made to the respondents-education authorities for grant of
approval which prayer appears to have not been considered in view of
anomaly created because of the new procedure which was directed to be
adopted by the Government in the matter of recruitment and approval.
3. It appears that the issue viz. failure of the respondents to consider
grant of approval to the appointment of the candidates like the petitioner
nos. 4 and 5 fell for consideration in Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2018
(Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others vs. Deputy Director of Education
and anr.) with connected writ petitions before the Division Bench of this
Court. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 13.03.2023
allowed the said petitions and issued directions, which read as under:
"33. We therefore allow the petitions partly and issue the
following directions :
(i) The Education Officer or the Deputy Director of
Education, as the case may be, shall consider or
reconsider, as the case may be, the proposals seeking
approval to the appointments of the petitioners - teachers
on merit and in accordance with law.
(ii) The proposals shall not be rejected on the ground
that the appointments are not made through Pavitra Portal
system, if the appointments are made on the strength of
interim orders of the High Court or during the period
when the Pavitra Portal was not functional.
(iii) The proposals submitted by the managements, who
were parties to Writ Petition 4684/2017 and Writ Petition
5059/2017 and/or connected matters, either individually
or as members of the petitioner - association, shall not be
rejected on the ground that appointments were made
without seeking the permission of the appropriate
authority. However, the managements, who were not
parties individually, will have to establish their
membership of the petitioner - association.
(iv) The petitioners shall produce copy of this judgment
before the appropriate authority which shall take
appropriate decision after hearing all the stakeholders
including the intervenors, who may wish to be heard,
within eight weeks from the production of the copy of the
judgment.
4. It is the contention of Mr. Kulkarni that the issue sought to be
canvassed in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgment in the matter of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others (supra)
and as such direction needs to be issued to the respondents - education
authorities to deal with the prayer of the petitioner for grant of approval
in view of the mandate provided in the order dated 13.03.2023.
5. Mr. Thakre, learned Additional Government Pleader on facts
submits that the issue can be said to be covered by the aforesaid
judgment i.e. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others (supra) and as such
the Court may pass an appropriate order in the matter.
6. Having regard to the facts that the issue sought to be canvassed in
this writ petition is identical to one which is decided on 13.03.2023 in
Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2018 with connected writ petitions referred to
above, we deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition.
7. We direct the respondents-education authorities to deal with the
prayers made in this writ petition and decide the same pursuant to the
directions issued in Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2018 with connected writ
petitions, reproduced above. We direct the respondents to take a
decision including that of release of arrears of salary expeditiously and in
any case within a period of six weeks from the date of production of copy
of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
8. The writ petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No order as
to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Andurkar.
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/09/2024 15:43:49
