Bombay High Court
Lalitkumar S/O Dashrath Hardule vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:5121-DB
1 wp.445.25-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 445 OF 2025
Lalitkumar s/o. Dashrath Hardule,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. - Service,
R/o. Vasi, Post Kadholi, Tah. Kurkheda,
District Gadchiroli. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of School Education
and Sport, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli,
Tah. & District - Gadchiroli.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
Tah. & District Gadchiroli. ... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. I. G. Meshram, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Rugved Dhore, Advocate h/f. Mr. A. W. Paunikar, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 07.05.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner is challenging the termination of his services
for not completing Diploma in Elementary Education till the cut-off
date i.e. 31.03.2019.
2 wp.445.25-J.odt
3. The petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher
subject to condition of appointment order on the establishment of the
respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli. On 09.02.2016, the Government Resolution was passed in
view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009. As per Rule 16, it was the requirement to appoint trained
teachers and time limit was given to complete the training for
untrained teachers, who were already in service. The limitation
prescribed in the said Government Resolution was till 28.02.2019. The
petitioner has passed required Diploma in Education Examination held
in June-2019. The institution has not conducted the examination in
February-2019, therefore, the present petitioner has passed the
examination on 28.08.2019. Without giving any opportunity of
hearing, the respondent No.3 has passed the order and terminated the
services of the petitioner for not acquiring the required Diploma within
the period of cut-off date.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
matter is covered by the judgment of this Court. This Court has passed
the order in Writ Petition No.6726/2024 [Ramchandra s/o. Anandrao
Tekam Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.], wherein the Court has
reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
3 wp.445.25-J.odt
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has conceded that
the matter is covered, but as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.935/2023 [Yuvraj Fulsing Rathod Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors.] decided on 06.02.2023, the continuity
of service for all the purposes was granted but has not granted any
wages for the period during which he was out of employment.
6. The petitioner has admittedly appeared for examination in
June-2019 as the examination was not conducted in February - 2019.
It was not within the domain of the petitioner.
7. In view of the judgment of Ramchandra s/o. Anandrao
Tekam (supra), the petition is allowed.
8. The termination order of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
9. The petitioner can make representation for consequential
benefits with respondent No.3 within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of the order.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/05/2025 10:17:42
