IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the regularization of teachers appointed against leave vacancies is a right supported by government resolutions, and that the Urban Development Department lacks jurisdiction over educational appointments and matters.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G.S.PATEL J. - Rule. There are Affidavits in Reply. Respondents waive service. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The two Writ Petitions are identical in all material respects. The only reason a second Writ Petition had to be filed was because those Petitioners came to Court later than the Petitioners in the first matter. We will, therefore, take the facts as we find them in Writ Petition No. 11703 of 2019, Prakash Bhagwat Shinde & Anr vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

3. It is perhaps unfortunate that these Petitions have been pending admission in this Court for such a long time. While that might be a factor of the pressures on this Court and the mounting numbers of filings and arrears, the human story behind these Petitions discloses an ongoing and unfolding tragedy. It concerns teachers. What is particularly disturbing is that while the Petitioners have been awaiting a disposal of their Petitions, time has marched on: all of them are now over-age although they are still in service.

4. The sole prayer in the Petitions as originally filed reads thus:

<WXY>"(b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to immediately implement the order dtd. 15/4/2017 [EXHIBIT-O] issued by the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly to absorb / accommodate the Petitioners as Primary Teachers on the sanctioned and vacant posts available in Primary Schools of the Respondent No. 4 Corporation and to pay monthly salary to the Petitioners in regular pay scale from the date of the said order issued by the Respondent No. 1, together will all arrears and consequential benefits."</WXY>

5. In the main Petition we have taken up as representative, there was an amendment on 17/3/2022 to introduce final prayer clause (c1) challenging a subsequent order of 27/7/2021. Payer clause (c1) reads thus:

<WXY>"(c1) By a suitable order/ direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 27/7/2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1."</WXY>

6. The Petitioners seek an order against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, respectively the Pune Municipal Corporation ("PMC") and its Administrative Officer / Education Officer to implement the resolution passed by the General Body of the PMC, as also a subsequent order by the State Government in its School Education Department accepting the Resolution of the PMC General Body. The resolution and the order between them regularise the Petitioners' service as primary teachers and afford them salary in the regular pay scale. The reason for the amendment is that the initial approval and the order of the 1st Respondent is now sought to be reversed and cancelled.

7. We should note a few recent events. The matters appeared before us periodically. We found that Mrs Purav, the learned AGP, was being compelled to seek time. This happened more than once. On 22/2/2023, we passed the following order:

<WXY>"1. The recent events in this matter seem to us to be symptomatic of a larger problem. Mrs Purav, learned AGP has more than once sought instructions. She has had to seek time from the Court again and again, although there are Affidavits in Reply by both the School Education Department and the Urban Development Department. She has given us to understand that she has been told that "the issue" is being taken up at the government. When she called for further particulars and further instructions, she received none. She is evidently expected to repeatedly ask the Court for time resulting in embarrassment to herself and making it very difficult to proceed with the matter.

2. We cannot understand a situation where government at various levels complains about delays and we then find that the government itself is responsible for a significant part of these delays. It is pointless to blame the law officers who appear for the government. Our experience is to the contrary. When Government Pleaders