Bombay High Court
St. Francis De Sales Education Society ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ... on 17 July, 2019
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: R.K.Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
wp5183-17-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5183 OF 2017
1. St. Francis De Sales Education
Society, through its Secretary,
SFS High School, Civil Lines,
Nagpur
2. St. Francis De Sales High School
Sadar, Nagpur through
its Head Master. ..PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
3. Gloria M. Anthony,
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation : Service,
St. Francis De Sales High School,
Sadar, Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri.A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms N.P. Mehta, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :R.K.DESHPANDE &
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 17.07.2019
ORAL J U D G M E N T (Per : R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Namrata
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 20:37:43 :::
wp5183-17-Judgment 2/4
2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
3] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated
04/07/2017 passed by the respondent No.2 the Education Officer
(Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur cancelling the approval
granted to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 on
22/12/2014 as 'Shikshan Sevak' to teach the classes from 5th
standard to 7th standard as an under Graduate Teacher.
4] On 07/08/2017 this Court passed an order as under:
"Heard Shri A. D. Mohagaonkar, learned counsel
for the petitioners. The submission is, Respondent
No.3 was not Graduate and has not been selected and
appointed against additional post becoming available
for Trained Graduate Teacher.
2. Notice, returnable on 18.08.2017.
3. Ms. N. P. Mehta, learned AGP waives notice for
respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
4. Till then, Ad interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (2)."
Namrata
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 20:37:43 :::
wp5183-17-Judgment 3/4
In view of the aforesaid order, it was expected from
the respondent to state on affidavit as to whether the appointment
of the respondent No.3 was as an under Graduate Teacher or a
Graduate Teacher. In the impugned order it is stated that the
additional post of Graduate Teacher was created due to increase in
the number of posts. Hence, it was necessary to clarify the
position.
5] In the affidavit dated 06/07/2019 filed by the
respondent No.2- the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur it is stated in paragraph 7 that there were 36
teachers working against 38 sanction posts including Headmaster
and Assistant Headmaster. But in the year 2014-2015 it was
noticed that there are 39 teachers working including Headmaster
and Assistant Headmaster. Thus, there was increase in one post,
which was required to be filled in after due sanction from the
State Government as per the Government Resolution dated
26/03/2002. It seems that one post of Graduate teacher was
created due to the increase in the workload.
Namrata
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 20:37:43 :::
wp5183-17-Judgment 4/4
6] There is nothing placed on record to show that the
post on which the petitioner was appointed as an under Graduate
Teacher, was created due to increase in the number of posts,
which required sanction of the State Government in terms of the
Government Resolution dated 26/03/2002. We, therefore, find
that the Education Officer was justified in canceling the approval
granted to the appointment of the petitioners.
7] In view of above, this writ petition is allowed and the
following order is passed.
ORDER
1] The order dated 04/07/2017 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur canceling approval granted to the respondent No.3 on 22/12/2014 is hereby quashed and set aside.
2] The respondent No.3 continues to be approved teacher in terms of order dated 22/12/2014.
Rule is made absolute.
JUDGE JUDGE
Namrata
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 20:37:43 :::