RAVINDRA v. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) 1 wp 937.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 937 OF 20241.Shital Ambadas GaikwadAge: 35 years, Occu.: Service,2.Poonam Raosaheb Kale,Age: 31 years, Occu.: Service,Both serving as Assistant Teachers inDnyandeep Mandir Primary School,Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar....PETITIONERSV/s.1. The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,School Education Department,Government of Maharashtra,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Commissioner of Education,Maharashtra State, Pune.3.The Deputy Director of Education,Office of Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune.4.Shri Gulab Sayyed,The then Educational Officer (Primary),Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.Presently residing at Navale Nagar, Parijat Corner, Near Surabhi Hospital, Gulmohar Road, Ahmednagar.5.The Education Officer (Primary),Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ( 2 ) 1 wp 937.24.....Mr. Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the PetitionersMr. B.M. Dhanure, AGP for the Respondent-StateMr. N.N. Bhagwat h/f. T.C. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent No.4Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for the Respondent No.5..…CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE :19th August, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Ravindra V.. Ghuge, J.):-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with theconsent of the parties.2.The Petitioners have put-forth prayer clause-B, as under:“B.By issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ ororder, the respondents no.2, 3 and 5 may kindly be directed to grantShalarth ID to the petitioners and to include their names as AssistantTeachers in Shalarth Pranali and further release their monthly salaryand the arrears of salary.”3.Petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak, on17.06.2013, for a period of three years. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as aShikshan Sevak, on 08.09.2014, for a period of three years. Both of thembelong to the S.C. category. Both of them have completed their three years as aShikshan Sevak. Both of them have now been appointed as Assistant Teachers.The then Education Officer granted approval to the appointments of thePetitioners on 23.02.2021.
Legal Reasoning
( 3 ) 1 wp 937.244.With the introduction of the Shalarth Pranali for the purpose ofpayment of salary, a Shalarth ID has to be allotted to each teacher. Hence, theEducation Officer forwarded the proposal for grant of Shalarth ID toRespondent No.3. It is contended that Respondent No.3 has noticed certaindeficiencies in the proposal. Vide communication dated 29.10.2021, theRespondent No.5 – Education Officer (Primary) is directed by Respondent No.3to submit a fresh proposal. Respondent No.5 submitted the revised proposalon 15.10.2021.5.In Amol Baban Sagar V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors, thisCourt, at the Principal Seat, delivered a judgment dated 21.02.2022 in WritPetition No.8966/2021, relying upon the judgment delivered at theAurangabad Bench in Pramod Prabhakar Pokale V/s. State of Maharashtra,2019 (3) Bom. C.R. 273. It was concluded that once an approval has beengranted, the name of an employee has to be entered in the Shalarth system,without which the salary payment of such a teacher would not be possible. Anote of caution has been struck by this Court in Amol Baban Sagar (supra), tothe Education Authorities, more specifically the Deputy Director of Education,that he cannot review the approval, unless there is a fraud, misrepresentationor suppression, clearly made out. The Education Authority are cautioned to be ( 4 ) 1 wp 937.24careful while dealing with the proposal for a Shalarth ID, when a teacher’sapproval is granted by the Education Officer.6.In Writ Petition No.10133/2016, the Principal Seat of this Court,passed an order on 01.08.2017. It was recorded as under:"By now, it is settled principle of law that unless the power of reviewis specifically or by necessary implication provided, the authoritycannot review its own order. No doubt, if an order is obtained byexercising fraud, it would stand vitiated. However, it is not the caseof the respondent Education Officer that the petitioners haveobtained their initially orders by fraudulent means. It is furtherobserved in the said order as under if the earlier Education Officerhad granted approval to the petitioners' appointment, may beerroneously, the same cannot be made a ground to recall the sameand pass contrary order, unless a case of fraud, misrepresentation orsuppression is made out. Particularly, when most of the petitionershave already put in their services for 11 years, the impugned orderswould amount to penalising them for no fault on their part."7.Based on the above observations of this Court, the StateGovernment introduced the GR dated 23.08.2017, by which, the power toreview was created by amending the GR dated 06.02.2012, in the form ofClause-C, with reads as under :क) दि(cid:3)लेली वैयदि(cid:11)क मान्यता रद्द करणे :-शि(cid:20)क्षक / शि(cid:20)क्षकेतर कम(cid:23)चा-यांची दि(cid:3)लेली वैयदि(cid:11)क मान्यता कोणत्याही कारणाने रद्द करणेक्रमप्राप्त असल्यास त्यापूव’ ज्या सक्षम प्राधि*का-याने वैयदि(cid:11)क मान्यता दि(cid:3)लेली आहे अ(cid:20)ाअधि*का-याच्या लगतच्या वरिरष्ठ प्राधि*का-याने संबंधि*त कम(cid:23)चारी, संस्था यांना कारणे(cid:3)ाखवा नोटीस (cid:3)ेऊन त्यांना त्यांची बाजू मांडण्याची सं*ी द्यावी. त्यानंतर दिनयमानुसारयोग्य तो दिनण(cid:23)य घ्यावा.
Decision
( 5 ) 1 wp 937.248.This Court dealt with a similar issue in Pratidnya TrimbakraoChavan and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ PetitionNo.4893/2024) and Jyoti Sonajirao Biradar and Ors. V/s. The State ofMaharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4901/2024) and directed theauthority to grant Shalarth ID so as to enable the payment of the salary of thePetitioners through the Shalarth Pranali. The pending scrutiny before theDeputy Director of Education, in the light of a complaint filed by a strangerclaiming to be a City President of ‘All India Panther Sena- Vidrohacha VisphotKarnara Bandkhor’, was stayed.9.In view of the above, since the approval granted to both thePetitioners is intact, the third Respondent will have to grant the Shalarth ID tothese Petitioners, since they are presently working as Assistant Teachers andare unable to draw their salary as per the approved scale, only because theShalarth ID is not allotted. No person can be made to work on meagre salaryand work cannot be extracted from any person, without payment of salary.10.We, therefore, direct Respondent No.3 to allot the Shalarth ID toboth these Petitioners so as to commence their payment through the ShalarthPranali, keeping in view that the institution in which both of them are workingis 100% grant in aid. Shalarth ID would be allotted to the Petitioner within 60days from today. ( 6 ) 1 wp 937.2411.Needless to state, in the light of the GR dated 23.08.2017, whichwas introduced by virtue of the order passed by this Court on 01.08.2017 inWrit Petition No.10133/2016, [which was not cited before this Court in AmolBaban Sagar (supra)], Respondent No.3 herein is at liberty to follow the dueprocedure laid down in law while considering whether there is any fraud,misrepresentation or suppression while obtaining approvals to theappointments of the Petitioners. All contentions of the parties are, therefore,kept open. In the event the State has formalised any special committee forlooking into such matters by relying on any particular policy, the said Authoritymay deal with the aspect as regards the purported fraud, misrepresentation orsuppression as regards the approval granted to these Petitioners. 12.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]mub