SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. D. Dhanuka, J R.N.Laddha, J.
Mohini Mohan Bhandwale - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (ST.) No.21141 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Prashant S. Bhavake, Advocate, N. C. Walimbe, Advocate

The approval granted by the Education Officer for the appointment of the petitioner as a full-time assistant Teacher was binding, and the Deputy Director of Education was directed to act accordingly.

Headnote:

Approval - Appointment of Part-Time Teacher to Full-Time Assistant Teacher - The court directed the Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the petitioner in Shalarth Pranali and release his salary arrears, as the Education Officer had already granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a full-time assistant Teacher.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Shikshan Sevak and was later approved for up-gradation to a full-time assistant Teacher. However, the Deputy Director of Education had not taken any decision on the proposal and kept it in abeyance, leading to the petitioner's salary not being released.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Education Officer had already approved the appointment of the petitioner as a full-time assistant Teacher, and thus directed the Deputy Director of Education to include the petitioner's name in Shalarth Pranali and release his salary arrears.

Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of the Deputy Director of Education to enter the name of the petitioner in Shalarth Pranali despite the approval granted by the Education Officer, leading to the petitioner's salary not being released.

Ratio Decidendi: The Education Officer's approval of the appointment as a full-time assistant Teacher was deemed sufficient, and the Deputy Director of Education was directed to take necessary actions based on the approval already granted.

Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and directed the Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the petitioner in Shalarth Pranali within four weeks and release the arrears of the salary within six weeks.

JUDGMENT

R. N. Laddha, J. - (Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on Board.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. This Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as the part time Shikshan Sevak with effect from 01.07.2012 and after completion of the probation period was confirmed in service as a permanent part-time assistant Teacher. Respondent No.5 - Education Officer, from time to time, granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. after rendering eleven years' continuous part time service, by exercising powers under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.2001 as well as the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005, respondent No.6 granted up-gradation to the petitioner on full-time post of assistant Teacher. a proposal was thereupon submitted for approval to his appointment as a full time assistant Teacher. The respondent No.5 - Education Officer vide order dated 13.12.2018 approved the proposal and that the approval is still in force. The Education Officer vide his recommendation letter dated 10.05.2019 forwarded the said proposal to the office of respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Education. after receipt of the said proposal, the respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Education vide his letter dated 04.11.2019 communicated some deficiencies in the said proposal to the respondent No.5 - Education Officer, who in turn vide his letter dated 18.11.2019, forwarded the detailed compliance report to the respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Education and again recommended for granting Shalarth ID to the petitioner. However, till date, the respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Education has not taken any decision on the said proposal and kept the same in abeyance.

3. We have heard Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Walimbe, learned aGP for the respondents-State.

4. according to Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioner, after getting approval from the Education Officer for up-gradation of the petitioner in the full-time post of assistant Teacher, the allotment of Shalarth ID pursuant to the said approval is only the ministerial act. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even otherwise the Deputy Director of Education cannot refuse to enter the name of the petitioner in Shalarth Pranali in view of the order of approval already granted by the Education Officer. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nilesh Namdev Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.6405 of 2021 with connected writ petitions. In his view, it is incumbent upon respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Education to allot the Shalarth ID to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Education illegally kept pending the proposal for allotment of Shalarth ID to the petitioner and for want of Shalarth ID, the salary of the petitioner cannot be released.

He accordingly sought the directions to the Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and to release his salary arrears.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 lays down the guidelines for appointments to be made in vacant posts. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Manohar Bhairu Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.4920 of 2019, dated 02.02.2021, is relied upon to submit that the ban on the fresh appointments under the applicable Government Resolution, by no stretch of imagination, would apply to those teachers, who were already in service as part-time teachers and the proposal was for their up-gradation as full-time assistant Teachers in view of the Government Resolutions dated 31.01.2001 and 10.06.2005.

6. Learned aGP is not in a position to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top