High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3520 OF 2023Rekha Gokul ChaudhariAge. 32 years, Occ. Service,R/o. V.H. Patel Primary Vidyalaya, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. … PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Principal Secretary,Sports and Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Deputy Director of Education,Division Nashik,Nashik Road, Nashik.3.The Education Officer (Primary)Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon4.Chalisgaon Education Society,Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. JalgaonThrough it’s Secretary5.V.H. Patel Primary Vidyalaya, Chalisgaon,Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. JalgaonThrough its Head Master. … RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4410 OF 2023Neetabai Ravindra ChaudhariAge. 33 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Behind R.K. Steel Corporation,Bhagvati Krushi Kendra Kharjai Naka,Takali Pr. Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. … PetitionerVersus 2 1.The State of Maharashtra,Through it’s Principal Secretary,Education and Sports Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Deputy Director of Education,Division Nashik,Nashik Road, Nashik.3.The Education Officer (Primary)Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon4.Chalisgaon Education Society,Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. JalgaonThrough it’s Secretary5.Hirubhai Himabhai Patel,Primary School, Chalisgaon,Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. JalgaonThrough its Head Master. … Respondents…Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh I. WakadeAGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mrs. V.N. Patil-JadhavAdvocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. V.V. GujarAdvocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. Vasant Patil … CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. RESERVED ON : 11 OCTOBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 18 OCTOBER 2024JUDGMENT [Shailesh P. Brahme, J.]:Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with theconsent of the parties. Heard both sides finally at the admissionstage.2.Both the petitioners are the teachers of the respondentno. 5 – School run by the respondent no. 4 – Educational 3 Institution. They are aggrieved by rejection of the proposal seekingcorrection in their approvals communicated by the respondent no.3 – Education Officer vide letters dated 29.09.2022 and01.02.2023. They are seeking directions for approving theirservices as an ‘Assistant Teacher’ on 100% aided post from the datethey resumed charge on a transferred post.3.Both the petitioners were appointed by following dueprocedure of law on unaided post as ‘Assistant Teacher’. PetitionerRekha Gokul Chaudhari was granted approval by the EducationOfficer on 17.06.2024. She was transferred from unaided post toaided post on 01.07.2016. After transfer the proposal wassubmitted and it was approved by the respondent no. 3 –Education Officer on 06.12.2017 treating her as ‘Shikshan Sewak’with effect from 01.07.2016 on aided post.4.In case of another petitioner, Neeta Chaudhari, herservices were approved by Education Officer on 30.06.2018 as‘Assistant Teacher’ on unaided post. After rendering services forabout one year and ten months she was transferred to aided poston 20.04.2020. The proposal was submitted which was turneddown by the Education Officer on 08.03.2022.5.Both the petitioners had preferred separate writpetitions before High Court due to defective approval in case ofRekha Chaudhari and rejection of proposal in case of NeetaChaudhari. By the intervention of the High Court, directions wereissued to the Education Officer to consider the previous servicesrendered by them in unaided section and matters were relegatedto him.
Legal Reasoning
4 6.The Education Officer rejected both the proposals bythe impugned orders on the novel ground that they were involvedin the scam of mal practices at TET examination and the offencewas registered against them. Their performance was cancelled andthey were banned from appearing in TET examination. 7.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that boththe petitioners have preferred separate writ petitions, challengingthe punishment imposed against them for mal practices in TETexamination. Those writ petitions are pending and interimprotection has been granted to not only to the petitioners butsimilarly situated teachers also. It is further contended that it issettled position that consistently right from judgment rendered inSuryakant S/o. Janardhan Muge Versus The State of Maharashtraand others, AIR OnLine 2019 Bom 2191, a view has been takenthat the previously rendered services on unaided section would becounted for granting approval after transfer to the aided post.8.Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 – EducationOfficer (Primary), opposed submissions of the petitioners. It issubmitted that both the petitioners are involved in a seriousoffence and the prosecution is sub judice, therefore, they are notentitled to receive any approval. The Education Officer has rightlyrejected the proposals.9.Learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered onrecord the orders passed in similarly circumstanced teachers in thematter of Jyoti Uttamrao Shinde and Others Versus The State ofMaharashtra, in Writ Petition No. 9430/2022, Digambar KisanPawar Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition
Decision
5 No. 12207/2022 and Anand Padmakar Mahajan Versus The Stateof Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No. 9369/2023. Theteachers whose performance was cancelled and who weredebarred as a punishment, have filed various petitions before thebenches as well as Principal Seat.10.A group of petitions led by Jyoti Uttamrao Shinde andOthers (supra), was heard by a coordinate bench and interimorder was passed on 20.09.2022. Thereafter, various such orderswere passed in different matters. All these petitions are pendingand they are clubbed together and placed before Aurangabadbench for further consideration. Following protection has beengranted to the petitioners in the matter of Jyoti Uttamrao Shindeand Others (supra) and connected matters :“7.In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents,returnable on 14.11.2022. The learned AGPs' waive service of notice onbehalf of State. Until further orders, by way of an ad-interimprotection, we direct that the services of these petitioners shall not beterminated, if not yet terminated, only on the basis of the impugnedorder. Their salaries shall be paid to them in view of they being onduty and on the condition of attending duties and performing theirjobs. Increments, if any, shall not be granted to these petitionerswithout the leave of the Court. This protection is limited to theimpugned order, meaning thereby that if any petitioner is liable for anyaction unconnected with the impugned order, the Management would beat liberty to follow the due procedure for initiating appropriate action.8.Needless to state, in so far as the investigation in the FIR thathas been lodged and in the event any employer desires to initiatedisciplinary action against any of these petitioners in connection withtheir conduct in the TET examination, the same shall proceedunhindered and the pendancy of these petitions would not be animpediment.”11.Present petitioner Rekha has preferred Writ PetitionNo. 12234/2022 and following interim relief was granted on05.12.2022 :“7.Until further orders, by way of an ad-interim protection, wedirect that the services of these petitioners shall not be terminated, if 6 not yet terminated, only on the basis of the impugned order. Theirsalaries shall be paid to them in view of they being on duty and onthe condition of attending duties and performing their jobs. Increments,if any, shall not be granted to these petitioners without the leave ofthe Court. This protection is limited to the impugned order, meaningthereby that, if any petitioner is liable for any action unconnected withthe impugned order, the Management would be at liberty to follow thedue procedure for initiating appropriate action.8.Needless to state, insofar as the investigation in the FIR thathas been lodged and in the event any employer desires to initiatedisciplinary action against any of these petitioners in connection withtheir conduct in the TET examination, the same shall proceedunhindered and the pendancy of these petitions would not be animpediment.”12.Petitioner Neeta has preferred Writ Petition No.4422/2023 and similar type of interim relief was granted on24.04.2023. The services and salary are protected by the interimorders which are still in operation. Therefore, impugned ordersrejecting the proposals of the petitioners is patently illegal. Thepetitioners are rendering services and they are entitled to receivesalary.13.The issue that earlier services rendered by teacher onunaided post would be counted for granting approval after thetransfer to the aided post is no more res integra. The law laiddown in the matter of Suryakant Janardhan Muge (supra) hasbeen consistently followed. Learned counsel for the petitioners hasrightly made submissions in this regard. We find that impugnedorders are liable to be quashed. Earlier services of the petitionerRekha of three years and that of Neeta of one year and ten monthsneed to be considered while granting approval. We, therefore, passfollowing order : 7 ORDERi.Both the Writ Petitions are allowed partly.ii.The order / communication dated 29.09.2022 in WritPetition No. 3520/2023 and order/communication dated01.02.2023 in Writ Petition No. 4410/2023 are quashed andset aside.iii.The respondent no. 3 – Education Officer in both thematters shall reconsider the proposals and decide it afreshwithin a period of six weeks on its own merits but those shallnot be rejected on the self same ground mentioned in theimpugned communication.iv.The respondent no. 3 – Education Officer shall takeinto consideration ratio laid down by High Court in thematter of Suryakant Janardhan Muge (supra) while decidingthe proposals.v.The parties shall be at liberty to place relevantdocuments before respondent no. 3. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]Thakur-Chauhan/-