High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
(4) wp-2826-2023.odtof the Writ Petition No.1890/2020. Thereafter, the petitioner wasreinstated in the service and proposal was made for approval. MrKedar, learned Advocate invites our attention to the order passed bythe Joint Director of Education, wherein entitlement of the petitionerhas been upheld and strictures are passed against the DivisionalDeputy Director of Education, Pune. He would further point out thatthe impugned order dated 08.03.2023 passed by the Education Officer iscontemptuous in nature.5.Mr. Shirse, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.1 to3 supports the impugned order. Mr. Hon, learned Advocate appearingfor respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that the Management hadforwarded the proposal to the Education Officer. However, proposal forgrant of approval is not sanctioned. 6.Having considered submissions advanced, it is apparentthat this is a classic case where the authorities or Education Officer arereluctant to implement the orders of Judicial Authorities and stillattempts to digs out reasons to withhold the benefit to the employeewho suffered illegal termination and reinstated in terms of the order ofthe School Tribunal. It is apparent that, the termination order of thepetitioner has been quashed and set aside and he is directed to bereinstated on the post of Junior Clerk alongwith back-wages. It ispertinent that the Education Officer is party to the proceeding beforethe School Tribunal. Even respondent no.4 Mr. Anil Eknath Shinde wasparty before the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was subjected tochallenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.1890/2020. Whiledismissing the writ petition of the Management, this Court observed inparagraph no.18 that the Management had discriminated the petitionerand victimized him while making favour to respondent no.3 i.e. Mr. AnilEknath Shinde. (5) wp-2826-2023.odt7.In light of the aforesaid background when proposal wasmoved for reinstatement of the petitioner, the Education Officer satover the proposal. The petitioner approached to the higher authoritiesi.e. Commissioner of Education, who observed that the EducationOfficer has unnecessarily delayed the grant of approval in favour of thepetitioner and also proposed disciplinary action against the EducationOfficer. Inspite of all this, respondent no.3-Education Officer passedthe impugned order dated 08.03.2023, thereby declining grant ofapproval in favour of the petitioner. The Education Officer observedthat the documents relating to the appointment of the petitioner andupdated reservation roster is not produced alongwith proposal.Pertinently, the order passed by the Joint Director of Education afterconclusion of the hearing dated 27.12.2022 clearly states that suchobjections are unwarranted and only requirement that Managementwas to submit the copy of the reservation roster. 8.Pertinently, initial appointment of the petitioner was in theyear 2001 and his reinstatement is directed by the order of the SchoolTribunal, wherein all the aspects regarding availability of the vacancyand legality of the appointment of the petitioner has been considered. Inthat view of the matter, it is evident that the respondents-Authoritiesare bent upon to frustrate the directions of the Tribunal as confirmed bythis Court. The impugned communication dated 08.03.2023 isapparently unjustified. The pendency of any proceeding at the behest ofMr. Anil Eknath Shinde has no relevance for the purpose ofimplementing the order passed by the School Tribunal and grant ofapproval in favour of the petitioner in view of the reasoned verdict inAppeal No.43/2016 and Writ Petition No.1890/2020. 9.Resultantly, we are inclined to allow the petition with costsof Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only), which shall be (6) wp-2826-2023.odtrecovered personally from respondent no.3-Education Officer(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Hence, we proceed to passthe following order:ORDERa.Writ Petition is partly allowed.b.The impugned communication dated 08.03.2023 issued by theEducation Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar is herebyquashed and set aside.c.The respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary), ZillaParishad, Ahmednagar shall grant approval in favour of the petitionerin pursuance of the proposal forwarded by respondent nos.4 and 5. Therespondent nos.3 to 5 are further directed to take necessary steps forrelease of salary of the petitioner in terms of order passed by the SchoolTribunal and continue to pay him salary as per his entitlement. d.The respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary), ZillaParishad, Ahmednagar shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty FiveThousand only) to the petitioner within the period of four weeks fromthe date of this order and shall submit the report of compliance to thisCourt within a period of two weeks thereafter.e.Writ Petition is disposed of.f.Rule is made absolute in above terms. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/March-2024
Arguments
(1) wp-2826-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.2826 OF 2023Arun s/o Bhausaheb Karlekar,Age: 55 years, Occ: Service,R/o. Chikhali, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar...PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Commissioner of Education,Maharashtra State, Pune.2.The Deputy Director of Education,Pune Region, Pune.3.The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.4.Shrigonda Taluka Krushiseva Sangh,Chikhali Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar,Through its President.5.Mhase Madhyamic Vidyalaya,At Mhase, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar,Through its Headmaster...Respondents …Mr. S. R. Kedar, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. S. K. Shirse, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.Mr. A. D. Sonkawade h/f Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4and 5. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 26th FEBRUARY 2024.JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 06th MARCH 2024.JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):- (2) wp-2826-2023.odt1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofthe parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage ofadmission.2.The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India thereby impugning the order dated 08.03.2023passed by respondent no.3 i.e. Education Officer (Secondary), ZillaParishad, Ahmednagar by which the proposal for grant of approval tothe appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk has beenrejected. Similarly, the petitioner seeks directions against respondentnos.3 to 5 to pay the salary since 13.05.2022 as per applicable pay scale.3.The petitioner contends that he was appointed as JuniorClerk with respondent no.5 which receives grant-in-aid from the State.The petitioner worked from 21.11.2001 till 20.12.2007 when his serviceswere terminated by oral order without there being any enquiry ascontemplated under law. The petitioner assailed his otherwisetermination before the School Tribunal at Solapur. The Tribunal afterhearing the respective parties, allowed the Appeal vide order dated19.12.2019 and directed respondent nos.1 to 3 therein to reinstate thepetitioner on his original post and pay back-wages from the date oftermination of his service. The respondent nos.4 and 5 assailed theTribunal’s order dated 19.12.2019 by filing Writ Petition No.1890/2020before this Court. This Court after hearing the parties, dismissed thewrit petition and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal.Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated as Junior Clerk andreported on his duties on 13.05.2022. The respondent nos.4 and 5moved proposal dated 20.05.2022 for grant of approval. The petitionerhas also made representations for release of his salary to therespondents as well as the Commissioner of Education, MaharashtraState, Pune. The enquiry was conducted in pursuance of the (3) wp-2826-2023.odtrepresentations of the petitioner and it was concluded that thepetitioner is entitled to receive salary and respondent nos.3 to 5 weresupposed to initiate necessary action. However, they failed to takesteps. The petitioner made one more representation dated 06.02.2023for release of salary. However, by impugned communication dated08.03.2023 respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary), ZillaParishad, Ahmednagar refused to entertain the prayer of the petitionergiving two reasons, (i) The petitioner has approached this Court and hiswrit petition is pending and (ii) Mr. Anil Eknath Shinde has beenappointed with effect from 01.11.2006 on the post of Junior Clerk, whohas been unilaterally relieved by respondent-Management vide orderdated 31.05.2022. Consequently, Mr. Anil Shinde approached theSchool Tribunal and said proceeding is subjudice. Consequently, theprayer for grant of approval to the petitioner is rejected and it isclarified that the Management shall be responsible for payment of hissalary. 4.Mr. Kedar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitionersubmits that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerkwith respondent no.5-School with effect from 21.11.2001. His serviceswere terminated by oral order of respondent-Management with effectfrom 20.12.2007. The petitioner had initially approached the IndustrialCourt challenging his otherwise termination. However, subsequentlyhe approached the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MaharashtraEmployees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,1977. The Appeal was heard on merit. The Management, EducationOfficer as well as Mr. Anil Eknath Shinde were parties in Appeal beforethe Tribunal. After hearing all concerned, the otherwise terminationdated 20.12.2007 was declared to be illegal and order of reinstatementof the petitioner with back-wages from the date of his termination waspassed. The order of the Tribunal has attained finality after dismissal