High Court

Legal Reasoning

[1] WP/ 7822 /2019+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7822 OF 2019Hanmant S/o Eknathrao Shinde,Age : 48 years, Occu. : Service,R/o : Sadhana High School, Degloor, Tq. Degloor,District – Nanded.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur3] The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded4] Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District – Nanded, Through its President / Secretary5] Sadhna High School, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded Through its Head Master6] Netaji Subhash Vidyalaya, Tamloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded Through its Head Master .. RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14495 OF 2019 IN WP/7822/2019(Sanjay S/o Shriram Kirjawalekar Vs. Hanmant S/o Eknathrao Shinde and others)ANDCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6251 OF 2020 IN WP/7822/2019(Pundlik Ganpatrao Thakur Vs. Hanmant Eknathrao Shinde and others)...Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for petitionerMr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for respondents no. 1 to 3Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent no. 4Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for respondent no. 5Respondent no. 6 served – absent.Mr. V.P. Kadam, Advocate for applicant in CA/14495/2019Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for applicant in CA/6251/2020... [2] WP/ 7822 /2019+ WITHCONTEMPT PETITION NO. 513 OF 2021 IN CP/249/2020 IN WP/7822/2019(Hanmant S/o Eknathrao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)...Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for petitionerMr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for respondent no. 2Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for respondent no. 3...WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5167 OF 2020Hanmant S/o Eknathrao Shinde,Age : 48 years, Occu. : Service,R/o : Sadhana High School, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District - Nanded.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 322] The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur3] The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded4] Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded Through its President / Secretary5] Sadhna High School, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded Through its Head Master6] Netaji Subhash Vidyalaya, Tamloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded Through its Head Master.. Respondents WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6256 OF 2020 IN WP/5167/2020(Sanjay Shriram Kirjawalekar V. Hanmant Eknathrao Shinde and others)...Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for petitionerMr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for respondents no. 1 to 3Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent no. 4Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for respondent no. 5Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant in CA/6256/2020... [3] WP/ 7822 /2019+ WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2021Vitthal Bandu Umate,Age 52 years, Occu. Service,R/o. Nath Nagar, Rampur Road,Tal. Degloor, District – Nanded .. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2] The Director of Education (Secondary), Maharashtra State , Dr. Anni Besant Road, Central Building, Pune-1.3] The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded. 4] Shri Sant Gadge Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sadhna High School, Taluka Degloor, District – Nanded Through its Secretary Sangram Bandappa Malge, Age 48 years, Occu. Agri., At post Gojegaon, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded.5] Hanmant s/o. Eknathrao Shinde, Age 48 years, Occu. Service, R/o. Sadhna Nagar, Degloor, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded... Respondents....Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for petitionerMr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for respondents no. 1 to 3Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent no. 4Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for respondent no. 5...WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1750 OF 2021Shri Sant Gadge Baba ShikshanPrasarak Mandal, Degloor,District – NandedThrough its SecretaryShri Sangram S/o. Bandappa Malge, [4] WP/ 7822 /2019+ Age : 48 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed,Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] The Director of Education, Maharashtra State (Secondary), Dr. Anni Besant Road, Central Building, Pune-1.3] The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District Nanded. 4] Hanmant s/o. Eknathrao Shinde, Age 48 years, Occu. : Service, Now transfer at Netaji Subhash Vidyalaya, Tambloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded... Respondents...Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitionerMr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for respondents no. 1 to 3Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for respondent no. 4... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.RESERVED ON : 12 JUNE 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 21 JUNE 2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Rule.  Rule in all these matters.  Rule is made returnableforthwith.  Learned AGP and learned advocate for the respectiverespondents waive service.  At the joint request of the parties, all thesematters are taken together for final disposal at admission stage in orderto avoid rigmarole. [5] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 2. In order to avoid confusion, the individual parties would behereinafter referred to by their surnames. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing ofthese petitions can be summarized as under:-(a) Shri Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is a trustwhich has been running five schools in and around Degloor town ofNanded district (hereinafter referred to as the management).  Themanagement purportedly issued transfer orders in the light ofprovisions of rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘theRules’) framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools(Conditions of Service)  Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).  The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded by thecommunication dated 29-05-2019 granted approval to three suchtransfers with effect from beginning of the academic year 2019-2020. Mr. Shinde who was serving in Sadhna High School was transferred toNetaji Subhash Vidyalaya.  Mr. Birajdar who was serving in NetajiSubhash Vidyalaya was transferred to Madneshwar Vidyalaya andMr. Umate who was serving in Madneshwar Vidyalaya was transferredto Sadhna High School. [6] WP/ 7822 /2019+ (b) Mr. Shinde filed writ petition no. 7822 of 2019 and allegingthat he was not served with the order of transfer and in-fact there wasno order of transfer issued by the management still by the impugnedorder the Education Officer on 29-05-2019 granted approval to thetransfer. (c) While directing notice to be issued on the first date ofhearing, by order dated 27-06-2019, status-quo as on that date wasdirected to be maintained. (d) On 09-12-2019, Mr. Shinde agitated before the Court thatthe Education Officer had issued transfer order and he was not beingpaid salary.  It was directed that if he was working with the institution, toforward his salary bills and the interim order was continued.(e) Mr. Shinde complained before the Court on 24-02-2020that the direction of the Court dated 09-12-2019 was not complied withand he was not being allowed to work in the original school.  Thematter was directed to be listed on 23-03-2020 and the interim orderwas continued. (f) Mr. Shinde then filed Contempt Petition no. 249 of 2019 forthe alleged disobedience but after going through the affidavit filed onbehalf of the management which was arrayed therein as respondentno. 3, by order dated dated 13-01-2021 the contempt petition was [7] WP/ 7822 /2019+ disposed of.  However, a direction was given for expediting payment ofsalary to him. (g) In the meanwhile the Education Officer by communicationdated 25-06-2020 directed Mr. Shinde to resume the duty in NetajiSubhash Vidyalaya on the ground that pursuant to the transfer order,Mr. Umate had joined Sadhna High School on 17-06-2019 and in spiteof the Headmaster of Sadhna High School having relieved him, he hadrefused to accept the relieving order and the order granting approval totransfer.  (h) Alleging that the Education Officer had no right to directhim to resume duty in the new place of posting, Mr. Shinde preferredWrit Petition no. 5167 of 2020 on 15-07-2020.  By the order dated 17-07-2020, again status-quo as on that day was directed to bemaintained and the matter was directed to be heard along withContempt Petition no. 249 of 2020 wherein Mr. Shinde was allegingbreach of the directions of the Court issued in Writ Petition no. 7822 of2019 and non payment of salary. (i) While this first writ petition no. 7822 of 2019 was beingprosecuted and contested, the Education Officer, by communicationdated 17-11-2020 addressed to the Headmaster of Sadhna HighSchool, informed that though Mr. Shinde was transferred from Sadhna [8] WP/ 7822 /2019+ High School to Netaji Subhash Vidyalaya and he had granted approvalto it, Mr. Birajdar was not relieved by the Headmaster of NetajiSubhash Vidyalaya and he had refused Mr. Shinde to join. He alsomentioned that Mr. Shinde had preferred Writ Petition no. 7822 of 2019and stating that subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, and asper the request of Mr. Shinde, the approval granted to his transferstood recalled and directed the Headmaster to accommodate him inthe vacant post that was available and further directed the Headmasterto forward the salary bills from June 2019 onwards and to reportcompliance.  (j) Mr. Umate and even the management through itsSecretary have been alleging the subsequent decision taken by theEducation Officer dated 17-11-2020 cancelling the approval granted tothe order of transfer of Mr. Shinde, by filing Writ Petition no. 1626 of2021 and 1750 of 2021, respectively.  (k) Mr. Shinde has filed Contempt Petition no. 513 of 2021 inContempt Petition no. 249 of 2020 alleging wilful disobedience of theorder passed by the Court in Contempt Petition no. 249 of 2020 dated13-01-2021 and the afore-mentioned different orders dated 27-06-2019, 09-12-2019 and 24-02-2020 passed in Writ Petition no. 7822 of2019. [9] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 4. Mr. Bachate for Mr. Shinde would vehemently submit thatthe order of the Education Officer dated 29-05-2019 purportedlygranting approval to the transfer order itself is dubious.  In-fact, noorder of transfer was ever passed by the management and still theEducation Officer had granted approval.  He would advert our attentionto the absence of date in the reference column of this impugnedcommunication purportedly regarding the letter received from themanagement.  According to him, this circumstance is clinching andwould justify the allegations of Mr. Shinde that in-fact, no order oftransfer was ever passed and the Education Officer had suo motuacted hand in gloves with one of the factions of the management. There has been long standing dispute in the management and in orderto harass Mr. Shinde that the impugned approval was granted by theEducation Officer.  Mr. Bachate would submit that there is absolutelynothing to demonstrate that the order of transfer was ever served to thepetitioner.   5. Mr. Bachate would then submit that realizing the error /mistake, the Education Officer has rectified it by taking a subsequentdecision communicated to the Headmaster of Sadhna High Schooldated 17-11-2020 thereby recalling the approval granted to the transferof Mr. Shinde and further directing him to be accommodated againstthe vacant post that was available in Sadhna High School.  No error orillegality is committed by him. [10] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 6. Mr. Bachate would then submit that in spite of direction ofthis Court to maintain the status-quo and further direction to forwardand process the salary bills from Sadhna High School, the directionswere wilfully disobeyed by the Headmaster and he is liable incontempt. 7. Mr. Gunale would submit that it is the prerogative of themanagement to effect transfer of the teachers in the light of rule 41.  Inexercise of such right, Mr. Shinde and two other teachers weretransferred and the Education Officer had granted approval.  Mr.Shinde refused to accept the order of transfer and even the order ofbeing relieved from Sadhna High School.  Attempt was made to servehim but he refused to accept it.  A panchanama was drawn.  Even theattempt was made to effect service by registered post acknowledgmentdue but he did not claim it.  Therefore, Mr. Shinde himself is to beblamed for the mess created.  Pursuant to the order, Mr. Umate wasalready relieved by the earlier school and had joined Sadhna HighSchool in place of Mr. Shinde and his salary bills were being processedthrough that school. 8.Mr. Gunale would then submit that the Secretary who hadeffected the transfer is in actual management of the trust and workingas such to the knowledge of the Charity Commissioner’s office.  Someindividuals who have been unable to take over the management have [11] WP/ 7822 /2019+ been obstructing the management without there being any right. Question of dispute in the management cannot be a ground forrefusing to grant approval to the transfer effected under rule 41 as hasbeen laid down in the matter Dr. Ishrat Ullah Khan V. The State ofMaharashtra (Writ Petition no. 4474 of 2012) followed in NarsinhaShikshan Prasarak Mandal V. The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur in Writ Petition no. 1847 of 2012 and NitaPandurang Chavan V. The State of Maharashtra and others; 2021SCC OnLine Bom 2978.9. Mr. Gunale would then submit that though EducationOfficer admittedly has never raised any dispute regarding the order oftransfer rather he granted approval to the order of transfer and oncehaving done so, he became functus officio.  He had no power of reviewand still perhaps apprehending some adverse observations by theCourt, has indulged in illegality of cancelling the approval granted byhim earlier to the transfer of Mr. Shinde.  He had no such power andjurisdiction and the subsequent communication dated 17-11-2020 isliable to be struck down on that count.10. Mr. Gunale would, lastly, submit that it is the prerogative ofthe management to effect transfer and it was obligation on the part ofMr. Shinde to honour the order of transfer duly approved by theEducation Officer.  He had already worked in the same school for [12] WP/ 7822 /2019+ almost 25 years and was adamant in not obeying the order.  The placeof new posting in a different school was barely within a distance of 20km from Sadhna High School and this conduct should dis-entitle himfrom getting any relief.11. As far as the alleged contempt is concerned, Mr. Gunalewould submit that the direction issued by this Court was to maintainstatus-quo as on the date the order was passed.  Mr. Shinde wasalready relieved albeit he had not accepted the communication.  Thefurther direction of the Court was to process the bill if at all he wasserving in Sadhna High School through that school.  He wouldtherefore submit that it is not a matter of contempt as is being alleged.12. Mr. Sabnis who appears for the headmaster of SadhnaHigh School supports the stand being taken by the management andthe submissions of Mr. Gunale.  In addition, he would advert ourattention to the affidavit in reply filed by the headmaster in Writ Petitionno. 7822 of 2019 and particularly, several annexures to point out thefact that though some doubt is being created due to absence of specificdate in the reference column regarding the communication received bythe Education Officer, in the order granting approval, office copy of thecommunication dated 02-05-2019 addressed to the Education Officeron behalf of the management informing about transfer effected andsoliciting the approval is annexed to the affidavit in reply of the [13] WP/ 7822 /2019+ headmaster and conspicuously bears the signature of the inward clerkof the Education Department (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nandedbearing the same date i.e. 02-05-2019.  He would, therefore, submitthat mere absence of mentioning the date in the order grantingapproval cannot be made capital of in the light of such proof regardingthe communication addressed to the Education Officer dated02-05-2019.  He would further advert our attention to the copy of therelieving order addressed to Mr. Shinde and even the panchanamadated 17-06-2019 conducted by the headmaster inter alia mentioningthat on 16-06-2019, when attempt was made to serve the order oftransfer to Mr. Shinde by reaching his house, he refused to accept itand stated that he would receive it on the next day i.e. 17-06-2019 butagain he refused to accept it on 17-06-2019 as well.  He would furtheradvert our attention to the copy of the joining report of Mr. Umate inSadhna High School and the copies of the salary bills processed by theheadmaster of all the employees including Mr. Umate but not that ofMr. Shinde.  He would also advert our attention to the copies of theenvelopes containing the relieving order sent to Mr. Shinde byregistered post and returned with endorsement to the effect thatintimation was delivered but it was being returned to the headmaster asunclaimed. [14] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 13. Mr. Sabnis would reiterate that the direction of which wilfuldis-obedience is being alleged was only to process the salary bills if thepetitioner i.e. Mr. Shinde was working with the respondent - institutioni.e. Sadhna High School.  Since he was not so working when the orderwas passed, there was no question of any compliance with thedirections.  Mr. Shinde was relieved from Sadhna High School on17-06-2019 and had never worked thereafter. 14. Learned AGP would support both the orders; the first ordergranting approval for effecting transfer and the subsequent orderrecalling it to the extent of Mr. Shinde.  He would submit that noillegality has been committed by the Education Officer and the petitionsof both the sides be dismissed. 15. Learned advocates for the intervenors would submit thatthere has been  a long standing dispute in the management and theindividual who claims to be the secretary, has effected the transferillegally.16. We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers.17. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that so far as thepowers of management are concerned, rule 41 and after amendment [15] WP/ 7822 /2019+ rule 41-A which has been inserted, govern the filed.  There has beenno dispute about the fact that the Education Officer has grantedapproval to the transfer effected by the management by thecommunication dated 29-05-2019.  Although some doubt is beingcreated due to the absence of details in respect of the date of order oftransfer in the reference column of this impugned order, as is evidentfrom the office copy annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by theheadmaster in Writ Petition no. 7822 of 2019, the approval wassolicited by express communication dated 02-05-2019 which was dulyreceived and acknowledged by the inward clerk of the EducationDepartment of the Zilla Parishad.  Even its copies were addressed tothe respective headmasters of the three schools.  There being nodenial about these annexures by filing any rejoinder by Mr. Shinde, onecan safely proceed on the premise that the doubt being created by Mr.Shinde stating that there was no order of transfer passed by themanagement and the Education Officer had granted approvalstraightaway without there being transfer order, is factually incorrect. 18. Again, when the Education Officer in his affidavit in reply,has expressly mentioned about having received the transfer ordersoliciting approval and he having granted the approval for such transferhas also gone without any demur.  We, therefore, discard thesubmission of Mr. Bachate regarding absence of any transfer order and [16] WP/ 7822 /2019+ alleging that the Education Officer has granted approval without anyorder of transfer. 19. Again, it is the specific stand of the management and theheadmaster of Sadhna High School, as mentioned herein-above aboutMr. Shinde having refused to accept the order of transfer and apanchanama was required to be conducted to that effect and even acopy was sent to him by registered post acknowledgment due and inspite of intimation, he did not claim it as per the endorsement on theenvelope returned to the headmaster and copies of which are alsoannexed to his affidavit in reply. Even these facts remainuncontroverted. 20. Similarly, even the stand of the management and theheadmaster about Mr. Umate having been relieved from the earlierschool and was allowed to join in Sadhna High School in place of Mr.Shinde and such joining report annexed to the affidavit in reply of theheadmaster, also remain uncontroverted.  Even the stand of theheadmaster about having processed the salary bills since June 2019onwards including name of Mr. Umate and excluding Mr. Shinde hasnot been disputed by filing any rejoinder. 21. In view of above state-of-affairs, in our considered view,there is enough material to demonstrate that the management had [17] WP/ 7822 /2019+ effected the transfer not only of Mr. Shinde but other two employeesMr. Birajdar and Mr. Umate by the same order and the EducationOfficer having granted  approval to it. Similarly, there is enoughmaterial to demonstrate that Mr. Shinde avoided to receive the orderbut was still relieved from Sadhna High School and in his placeMr. Umate had resumed the charge and since thereafter, Mr. Shindehad not worked in Sadhna High School. 22. Consequently, when the direction of this Court of whichdis-obedience is being alleged expected his salary bills to beprocessed if he was working in Sadhna High School and, therefore,would constitute contempt, is without any substance.23. Assuming for the sake of arguments but not intending toindulge into the dispute regarding there being some disharmonyamongst the members of the management, neither the order grantingapproval issued by the Education Officer nor his subsequent orderrecalling the approval to the extent of Mr. Shinde expressly adverts toany such controversy regarding the dispute in the management.The interevenors are merely seeking to intervene and apparently havenot made any attempt to independently challenge the order of transferon the ground that the person who had effected the transfer posinghimself to be the secretary, was not in-fact, working and recognized bythe office of the charity commissioner as the secretary. [18] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 24. Besides, as is clear from several decisions referred tohereinabove, this Court has consistently held that approval to thetransfer effected under rule 41 cannot be refused on the ground ofthere being a dispute amongst the members of the management. 25. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the two writpetitions and one contempt petition filed by Mr. Shinde. 26. So far as the legality and sustainability of the subsequentcommunication being impugned by the management and Mr. Umatedated 17-11-2020 whereby the Education Officer recalled the approvalgranted to the transfer of Mr. Shinde and directing the headmaster toallow him to resume in Sadhna High School, we have no manner ofdoubt that it suffers from a vice of absence of any power in theEducation Officer.  Once it is found that it is the prerogative of themanagement to effect transfers of the teachers under rule 41 and oncehaving granted approval to such transfer by communication dated 29-05-2019, he had become functus officio.  The power of review has notbeen conferred upon him by the statute and once having grantedapproval for effecting transfer of Mr. Shinde, he had no power to recallit.  The issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment Mrs.Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande V. The State of Maharashtra andothers (Civil Writ Petition no. 10133 of 2016 dated 01-08-2017). [19] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 27. We also are surprised by the fact that in spite of specificstand of the management and the headmaster before this Court in allthese petitions to which the Education Officer has been a party, thatpursuant to the order of transfer Mr. Shinde was relieved from SadhnaHigh School on 17-06-2019 and obviously, since thereafter, he was notallowed to and did not discharge the work in Sadhna High School.  TheEducation Officer directed the headmaster by the impugnedcommunication dated 17-11-2020 to continue Mr. Shinde in SadhnaHigh School and to forward his salary bills in view of the vacancy thatwas available in the school.  It is highly objectionable that in spite ofhaving not discharged the work as Assistant Teacher in Sadhna HighSchool from June 2019, the Education Officer by the impugnedcommunication dated 17-11-2020 directed his salary bills to beprocessed which is a period of around 1-½ year.  We stronglydeprecate such a conduct firstly, of petitioner Mr. Shinde in not obeyingthe order of transfer, the relieving order and still Education Officerdirecting his salary to be paid.  We, therefore, do not have slightest ofhesitation to quash and set aside the communication dated 17-11-2020of the Education Officer. 28. It is quite surprising that Mr. Shinde who is appointed on apious job of teaching has been able to work in the same school formore than two decades, and feels aggrieved if he is transferred to [20] WP/ 7822 /2019+ another school of the same management stated to be barely within 20km from the existing school.  His failure to join at the new placecertainly would have adversely affected not only the management buteven the students studying in that school.  It would be a permanentloss for the students who have been deprived of education by theteacher who was supposed to teach them English.  Even if he hadsome grievance, that should not have been at the cost of the effectiveworking of the school.  He could have resumed at the place of his newposting and could have continued to fight the battle.  Instead, he didnot resume at the new posting and was not allowed to continue in theprevious school meaning thereby only because of his suchstubbornness that the mess has been created and his such conduct, inour considered view, disentitles him from getting any relief under Article226 of the Constitution of India. 29. Writ petition no. 7822 of 2019 and writ petition no. 5167 of2020 are dismissed.  30. Contempt petition no. 513 of 2021 is closed.31. Writ petition no. 1626 of 2021 and writ petition no. 1750 of2021 are allowed. 32. The impugned order of the Education Officer dated17-11-2020 is quashed and set aside. [21] WP/ 7822 /2019+ 33. All pending civil applications are disposed of.34. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 35. By way of clarification, we direct that if petitionerMr. Shinde is ready and willing to join at Netaji Subhash Vidyalaya,Tamloor, Taluka - Degloor, District - Nanded, he may be allowed to doso.  [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/