Shri Rahul Hindurao Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The contention of the Petitioner that he has a vested right to appointment as an Assistant Teacher, is incorrect. No such direction was issued by the Division Bench on 26 September 2011 in the earlier proceedings. On the contrary, while setting aside the appointment…
Judgment
Shri Rahul Hindurao Salunkhe. ...Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Avinash Ram Belge for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.s.Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sagar A.Rane for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND R.D.DHANUKA, JJ. June 13, 2012. P.C. : The appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on compassionate grounds under an order dated 2 August 2006 and his subsequent confirmation as an Assistant Teacher was set aside, together with the approval order dated 16 March 2007 by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vasant Jinnappa Chougule vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 3914 of 2010 decided on 26 September 2011). The Petitioner was the Fifth Respondent to those proceedings. The Division Bench, however, VBC 2/2 wp3634.12-13.6 while setting aside the appointment of the Petitioner directed that if the management released an advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the open category in the near future, the Petitioner herein would be at liberty to apply and preference would be granted to him, other things being equal. Thereafter, the record before the Court indicates that the Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak as a fresh appointment on 8 November 2011. This appointment was approved on 2 January 2012.
The contention of the Petitioner that he has a vested right to appointment as an Assistant Teacher, is incorrect. No such direction was issued by the Division Bench on 26 September 2011 in the earlier proceedings. On the contrary, while setting aside the appointment of the Petitioner, the Division Bench issued certain equitable directions. The Petitioner has been appointed as a Shikshan Sevak after the judgment of the Division Bench. In this view of the matter, the relief that is sought to the effect that his services should be approved as an Assistant Teacher cannot be granted. There is no merit in the Petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( R.D. Dhanuka, J. )
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.