Bombay High Court
Anil Ramrao Mehtre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2019
Author: Sunil P. Deshmukh
Bench: Sunil P. Deshmukh
(1) WP-6284-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6284 OF 2017
Anil S/o Ramrao Mehtre,
Age : 35 years, Occu : Service,
As a Peon, R/o. Neknal, Tal : Deoni,
Dist : Latur .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2] The Education Ofcer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur
3] Adarsha Education Society,
Deoni, Tal : Deoni, Dist : Latur,
Through its Secretary
4] Adarsha Madhyamic Vidyalaya,
Neknal, Tal : Deoni, Dist : Latur,
Through its Headmaster .. Respondents
...
Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for respondent - State
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE : 11-09-2019
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties fnally, by consent. ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:53:58 :::
(2) WP-6284-2017
2. As the earlier incumbent employee Mr. Abhang Tulshiram Jadhav had resigned from the post of peon in respondent no. 4 - vidyalaya, it is stated that applications from eligible candidates for said post were invited with a view to fll up backlog of reserved category posts.
3. During submissions, Mr. Gunale, learned counsel for petitioner purports to refer to that Mr. Jadhav, who had resigned, had been from Nomadic Tribe category and in his post after scrutiny, selection committee had chosen petitioner and accordingly respondent no. 3 - institution had issued appointment order on 15-06-2009. To said appointment, vide communication dated 21-01-2011 of respondent no. 2, approval came to be granted on permanent non-aid basis. While there had been a change in policy and 'permanent' word had been removed and schools which were granted permissions to run on permanent non-aid basis had become eligible to receive aid from 2013 onwards.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that upto the date of petition, more than 9 years service had been rendered by petitioner. He is a regularly appointed employee of respondents no. 3 and 4 and while the school and the post is eligible to receive grant-in-aid as per scheme of the government, he is not receiving beneft of the same.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:53:58 :::
(3) WP-6284-2017
5. Since the beneft of the same was not being received at the end of petitioner, he has moved this court inter-alia praying for arrears of salary from 2009 onwards. Respondent no.2 has fled his reply purporting to resist the claim for salary, referring to government resolution dated 19-09-2016, contending that the same stipulates appointments of teaching and non-teaching staf without considering reservation policy, would not receive grant-in-aid. It is further submitted that appointment of present petitioner has been made without following reservation policy. Reference has been made to communication dated 03-04-2017 issued by Desk Ofcer, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, purporting to direct not to release payment of teaching and non-teaching staf appointed without considering reservation policy.
6. As far as petitioner's case is concerned, it would not be gainsaid that a permanent approval has been granted to his appointment vide communication dated 21-01-2011, referred to hereinabove albeit on permanent non grant-in-aid basis. There is no dispute about that the government had subsequently started grant-in-aid to such institutions removing the word 'permanent'. It is not the case of respondents that respondent no. 4 is not eligible to receive grant-in-aid while it has been asserted by petitioner that he has occupied a post which earlier had been occupied by a person from Nomadic Tribe category and petitioner is from ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:53:58 ::: (4) WP-6284-2017 Nomadic Tribe category, matter will have to be viewed accordingly. Moreover, what is the reservation policy is also not been elucidated in the reply by the government.
7. In the circumstances, it appears to be expedient that respondent no.2 looks into the matter afresh and considers case of petitioner in accordance with the policy and scheme of the government.
8. It would be expedient that respondent no.2 embarks upon appraisal of petitoner's case keeping in view that his appointment has been permanently approved way back in 2011 and decide upon his proposal expeditiously preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
9. Writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[S.M. GAVHANE] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:53:58 :::