Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pathan Afroz Khan Saheb Khan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 May, 2017

Author: S.V. Gangapurwala

Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5929 OF 2017

1.     Pathan Afroz Khan s/o Saheb Khan,
       Age : 29 years, Occu.: Service,
       R/o. Mehboob Nagar, Ambad,
       Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna

2.     Dr. Iqbal Urdu High School,
       Through its Head-Master,
       Mr. Khazi Anzar Ahmed
       Age : 57 years, 
       Occu.: Service as Head Master,
       R/o. Arab Mohalla, Near Old Tahsil,
       Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna

3.     Urdu Education Society,
       Through its Chairman,
       Shaikh Mohammed Ayyub s/o. Shaikh Habib
       Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service,
       R/o.: Juna Bazar, Aurangabad        ..PETITIONERS

       VERSUS

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through Secretary, 
       School Education Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032

2.     The Director,
       Secondary Education Maharashtra State,
       Central Building, Pune

3.     The Deputy Director of Education,
       School Education Department,
       Aurangabad

4.     The Education Officer (Secondary),
       Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad

5.     The Commissioner of Education,
       Office of Commissioner of Education,
       Balbharati Area, 5th Floor, 
       Senapati Bapat Road,
       Pune - 04                            ..RESPONDENTS


     ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:30 :::
                                              2                           wp5929-2017


                           ---
Mr. Zia-Ul-Mustafa, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for respondents/State

                                            ---

                                        CORAM :   S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                  SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

                                        DATE  :  3rd MAY, 2017


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.):

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P. waives notice of Rule for all the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P., heard finally.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposal submitted by petitioner No. 3, seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is rejected on the ground that surplus teachers are not absorbed as per Govt. Resolution dated 20th June, 2014. The learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 3 is a Minority Institution and as such, it is protected by Govt. Resolution dated 13th July, 2016. ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:30 :::

3 wp5929-2017

3. The learned A.G.P. submits that as large number of surplus candidates are yet to be absorbed, the order impugned in this petition is rightly passed.

4. The petitioner has produced on record a copy of the certificate (Exhibit-B to the petition) showing that it is recognized as a Minority Institution. Clause (6) of the Govt. Resolution dated 13th July, 2016 reads as under :-

^^,sfPNd lek;kstukl lnj laLFkk r;kj ulY;kl v'kk loZ vYila[;kd laLFkkauh dsysY;k in Hkjrhl egkjk"Vª [kktxh 'kkGkarhy deZpkjh ¼losP;k 'krhZ½ vf/kfu;e 1977 dye 5 ¼1½ e/khy rjrqnhe/kwu oxG.;kr ;kos- lnj rjrwn ek- loksZPp U;k;ky; o dkgh jkT;kaP;k mPp U;k;ky;kaP;k U;k;fuokM;kuqlkj Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk dye 30 ¼1½ P;k rjrwnhl ck/kk ;sr vlY;kus lnj vYila[;kd laLFkkauh dsysY;k in Hkjrhl oS;Drhd ekU;rk ns.;kckcr mfpr dk;Zokgh djkoh-**

5. In view of the said clause, reproduced supra, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6. In the light of above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall consider the proposal submitted by petitioner No. 3 seeking ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:30 ::: 4 wp5929-2017 approval to the appointment of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on its own merits expeditiously and preferably within four months. The Education Officer shall not reject the said proposal on the ground on which the impugned order is passed.

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

                 Sd/-                              Sd/-
       [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]              [S.V. GANGAPURWALA]
               JUDGE                            JUDGE


npj/wp5929-2017




     ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017           ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:30 :::