Bombay High Court
Sharad Dayaram Birari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:23327-DB
Digitally
signed by WP-94-2018.J.-C
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date:
2025.06.13
18:55:33
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2018
Sharad Dayaram Birari )
Age - Major, Occ. Service )
R/o. Dangsoudane, Tal. Baglaan, )
Dist. Nashik 423301 ) ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Through Social Justice & Special Assistance )
Department, Mantralay, Mumbai )
2. The Director, )
Directorate of Welfare of VJNT, )
OBC, SBC, State of Maharashtra, )
3rd Church Road, New Bldg., 5th Floor, )
Near Govt. Photo Zinco Press, Pune 400 001 )
3. Divisional Social Welfare Officer )
Nashik Region, Nashik )
4. The Special District Social Welfare Officer )
cum Additional Commissioner, )
Near Nasardi Pool, Pune Road, Nashik )
5. The President, )
Tulaja Bhawani Education Social and )
Welfare Society )
Dangsaindane, Tal. Baglan, District Nashik ) ...Respondents
Mr Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the Petitioner
Mr Vikas M. Mali, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Ms Priya A. Patil for Respondent No. 5
akn 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2025 17:50:50 :::
WP-94-2018.J.-C
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10th JUNE 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT (Per M. M. SATHAYE, J):
1. The Petitioner is seeking directions to the Respondent No. 4
(Special District Social Welfare Officer cum Additional Commissioner,
Nashik) to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner from
01/07/2004 and to consider his initial date of appointment accordingly and
give him all benefits.
2. The case of the Petitioner in short is that, the Petitioner
completed his education of B.A. B.P.Ed and was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in an Ashram School run by the Respondent No. 5-Management.
The Petitioner came to be appointed on 01/07/2004. His proposal was
forwarded, however, no decision was taken thereon. Though the Petitioner
has worked from 2004 to 2007, no salary was paid on the ground of lack of
approval. The Petitioner took admission for B.Ed Course to save his
appointment and after completion of B.Ed., his proposal was forwarded by
the school in the year 2007. The Respondent No. 4, vide order dated
WP-94-2018.J.-C
27/10/2007 granted approval to the appointment of Petitioner for a period of
2 years on probation from 15/07/2007. The Petitioner made representations
and requested for grant of approval from initial date of appointment,
however, the same was not considered.
3. The Petitioner came across an order dated 05/07/2017 passed
by this Court in WP/4856/1999 (The Maharashtra Ashram Shala Shikshak
and Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangh & Ors vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others), wherein the qualifications of B.Ed and B.P.Ed were held to be
equivalent and therefore the present Petition is filed, drawing support from
the same.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the
Petitioner was holding B.P.Ed qualification from 1998 as also on the date of
his initial appointment in July 2004, the same be considered equivalent to
B.Ed. and approval be granted to his appointment from 01/07/2004 along
with all benefits.
5. Learned AGP, on the other hand, has opposed the Petition by
referring to an affidavit-in-reply dated 29/09/2022 filed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Social Welfare, Nashik. It is submitted that the approval as
granted to the Petitioner from 15/07/2007 is legal and proper. He submitted
WP-94-2018.J.-C
that the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner in case of Maharashtra
Ashram Shala Shikshak and Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangh & Ors (supra)
is not applicable to the Petitioner.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
records. Perusal of the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner shows that it
was specifically made applicable to the Graduate Assistant Teachers who
are qualified as B.Ed. / B.P.Ed and appointed after following the due
procedure and who are 'teaching in Class V to VII of Primary Ashram
Schools'. It is therefore clear that the said judgment applied to the teachers
working in primary section of Ashram Schools. Perusal of communications
signed by the Petitioner and produced by him on record, indicate that the
Petitioner is working in Secondary Division of the Ashram School. The
name of the school in which petitioner is working is Chattrapati
Madhyamik Ashram Shala which is a Secondary Shool.
7. The fact that the Petitioner is working in Secondary Section of
the school is not disputed even by the learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 5-Management. On our specific query to the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 5-Management, how the judgment relied upon by the
Petitioner would apply to him, no explanation was offered.
WP-94-2018.J.-C
8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the very
reliance placed by the Petitioner on the case of Maharashtra Ashram Shala
Shikshak and Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangh & Ors (supra), for claiming
equivalence between B.Ed. and B.P.Ed qualification, is misplaced.
9. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the
approval as granted, and there is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. All the concerned to act on duly authenticated/digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
