Back
G. S. PATEL, NEELA GOKHALE
Prasad Rajaram More – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
1. Rule. The Respondents have filed their Affidavits in Reply. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd March 2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent-Education Officer of the 1st Respondent-State, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. The 4th Respondent is the Headmaster of 3rd Respondent-Management.
3. The Petition is ambiguity personified. It is replete with conflicting statements. Confusion is worse confounded, for the contesting Respondents make conflicting averments made in their own respective Reply Affidavits. There is contradiction all around. Astonishingly, the contentions of each side score a self-goal and defeat their own stands.
4. The Petitioner claims to have completed his probation period of three years as Shikshan Sevak in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (English). He prays for continuation in the post and disbursement of commensurate pay. The Management on the other hand claims to have terminated the probation period of the Petitioner mid-way and further claims that the Petitioner has accepted a contractual appointment thereafter. The third
The law will not come to the aid of an employee who abandons service and seeks relief after a prolonged period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accrued benefits cannot be taken away without giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity to defend specific allegations, and specifi....
The appointment of the Petitioner in the Open category was in contravention of the Recruitment Rules and the condition to the NOC, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established is that the Management's responsibility in the chaos of the recruitment procedure cannot be shifted to the Education Department, and the Court can direct the Manageme....
The responsibility of the Management to act in accordance with the MEPS Act and Rules, and the State cannot be faulted for the Management's substantive lapses in the selection procedure.
The responsibility for substantial lapses in the selection procedure employed by an educational institution lies with the Management, and the Court can direct the Management to reinstate an employee ....
The responsibility for the substantive lapses in the selection procedure lies with the management, and the State cannot be faulted for the petitioner's plight.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Management's failure to fulfill its responsibilities under the MEPS Act and Rules led to substantial lapses in the selection procedure,....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
