Bombay High Court
Pradeep S/O Vasantrao Yedatkar vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of ... on 4 October, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Milind N. Jadhav
8.wp6075.18.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6075 OF 2018
Pradeep s/o Vasantrao Yedatkar
Aged about 35 years,
Occ.: Service, R/o. At Post
Chikhli Camp, Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of
Social Justice, Cultural Affairs and
Special Assistance, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Special District Social Welfare Officer,
Yavatmal.
3. Divisional Social Welfare Officer
Amravati Division, Amravati.
4. Director, Directorate of V.J.N.T. OBC &
SBC, State of Maharasthra, Pune.
5. Secretary, Rashtriya Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Pusad, Office at Opp. Laghu
Patbandhare Department, House of
Mr. L.H. Yedatkar, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
6. Head Master, Vasantrao Naik
Madhyamik Ashram Shala,
Chikhli Camp, Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. .... RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate a/w Mr. Pushkar Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
None for respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
________________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:03:18 :::
8.wp6075.18.odt
2/6
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 04.10.2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 is present. Nobody is present for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. In any case, no relief has been claimed against the respondent No. 5. Hence, heard finally forthwith.
2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
3. The petitioner has been appointed as Hostel Superintendent of the school of respondent No.6 on 09.07.2005. His appointment was to take effect from 25.08.2005 and the said appointment of Petitioner was on probation till 11.07.2007. The petitioner successfully completed his probation period. The appointment of the petitioner was given temporary approval by the respondent No.2, for the specific period of 12.07.2005 till 11.07.2007, subject to several conditions mentioned therein with one condition that, if any administrative difficulties arose in relation to his appointment, the temporary approval so granted would be ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:03:18 :::
8.wp6075.18.odt 3/6 liable to be recalled.
4. After completion of the probation period, the petitioner was continued in service and the management sent a proposal to respondent No.2 for seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner on permanent basis. The respondent No.2, however, rejected the proposal by relying upon the instructions contained in the Government Resolution dated 14.02.2006 which stated that as the Hostel and the School were situated in one and the same premises, the post of Hostel Superintendent was not separately and independently provided. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition.
5. The only ground for rejection of the proposal sent by the management, is that as the school and the hostel are located in the same premises, the post of Hostel Superintendent is not separately provided in terms of the Government Resolution dated 14.02.2006.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed on record their latest reply dated 24.09.2019, along with the clarification dated 23.09.2019, received from the Desk Officer of the State of Maharashtra in the department of respondent no.1.
7. The reply as well as the clarification indicate that the ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:03:18 :::
8.wp6075.18.odt 4/6 provisions made in the Government Resolution 14.02.2006, in particular, the mandate that no post of Hostel Superintendent shall be independently admissible where school and the hostel are situated in the same premises, are applicable to all the schools with effect from the Academic year of 2004-05 and so the approval could be granted.
8. On perusal of the Government Resolution, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to agree with the clarification given by the Desk Officer. After all this clarification is only the own interpretation of the instructions contained in the Government Resolution by the Desk Officer. The clarification cannot be equated with the decision of the Government. Here, the decision of the Government Resolution, in the nature of the executive instructions, is contained in the Government Resolution dated 14.02.2006.
9. Bare perusal of the Government Resolution or the Government decision is sufficient for us to conclude that the decision is applicable to only 137 Secondary Ashram Schools as mentioned in the Government Resolution. The petitioner is Ashram School is not schools which was granted approval for it's being set up from the academic year of 2004-05. This Government Resolution resolves the issue of creation and admissibility of various posts of ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:03:18 :::
8.wp6075.18.odt 5/6 teaching and non-teaching staff for the 137 Secondary Ashram Schools being newly established from the academic year of 2004-05, and therefore, it instructs that from academic year onwards, post of Hostel Superintendent shall not be independently admissible where the hostel and school are situated within the same premises.
10. This Government Resolution takes a decision which specifically applies to 137 schools, which were to be started from the Academic year of 2004-2005. It does not take any such general decision as would be applicable to all the schools already in existence on the date of 14.02.2006. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the clarification given by the Desk Officer is erroneous. In any case, it is not the decision taken by the Government by issuing any corrigendum to Government Resolution dated 14.02.2006 or new Government Resolution and so would not prevail over the executive instructions. As such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
11. In the result, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to grant permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Hostel ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:03:18 :::
8.wp6075.18.odt 6/6 Superintendent, if he is otherwise qualified for the same, along with the continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits.
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Prity
::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:03:18 :::