Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
R.G.AVACHAT, AJIT B.KADETHANKAR
Tousif Ahmed Nazir Ahmed Janwadkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointments valid under 2005 staffing pattern permission (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dispute on salary grant from appointment vs 2019 policy (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. 2013 gr abeyed ab initio; 2005 governs pre-2019 appointments; later grs prospective (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. quash exclusion; salary grant from appointment date (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
Judgment :
Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.
1. Considering the nature of prayers in the petitions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions finally.
2. Consequent to superannuation of one Mr. Rajnaal and one Mr. Lalkot, an application was filed by the petitioner School Management on 5th October 2012 to the Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur seeking permission to fill up two posts of Junior Clerk. On 8th October 2012, the Education Officer was pleased to grant permission to the School Management to fill up both the vacancies pertinently mentioning that it would be filled up in the light of the Policy dated 25th November 2005. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the contents of the permission dated 8th October 2012 as follows :-
3. It is not disputed that by due process of law, the petitioners were appointed on the posts
Appointments under 2005 staffing pattern entitle salary grant from appointment date; 2013 pattern abeyed ab initio by 2015 GR, 2019/2020 patterns prospective, do not affect prior valid appointments.
GR 2013 staffing pattern held in abeyance ab initio by GR 2015; 2005 pattern continued till 2019/2020; appointments to sanctioned posts thereunder valid, approval grantable from joining date despite ....
Staff appointments valid despite officer inaction if procedure followed sans fraud; 2013 staffing GR inoperative ab initio per 2015 abeyance; prior patterns apply to interim vacancies; no retrospecti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management must adhere to the rules and regulations for the appointment of staff in private schools, including the obligation to ascertain....
The court held that a petitioner selected prior to a government resolution is entitled to regular pay-scale instead of a fixed salary, quashing the tribunal's contrary decision.
The appointment of teachers must be approved for salary and benefits as per court decisions, overriding current authority objections based on procedural violations.
The recruitment process for non-teaching staff in aided schools must adhere to transparency and fundamental rights, ensuring that candidates are not penalized for management's irregularities.
Approval for appointment of educational staff must adhere to existing vacancies and established communication protocol; unmanaged delays by authorities warrant administrative accountability.
The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.
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
