Bombay High Court
Smt. Pratibha Purushottam Nagore vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 6 February, 2020
Author: S.M.Modak
Bench: R.V. Ghuge, S. M. Modak
1
wp2734of2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2017
(Smt. Deepa Romharshan Nandanwar ..vs.. State, thr Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai & Ors)
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 2735 OF 2017
(Sau. Lata Murlidhar Shrikhande, Nagpur..vs.. State, thr Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai & Ors)
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2017
(Sangita Sunil Hude, Nagpur..vs.. State, thr Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai & Ors)
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 2737 OF 2017
(Smt. Pratibha Purushottam Nagore, Nagpur..vs.. State, thr Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai &
Ors)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.P. Thakre with Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri H.D. Dubey, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri A.D. Mohagaonkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
: S.M.MODAK, JJ.
DATE: 6th FEBRUARY, 2020.
1. We have perused the earlier order passed by this Court on 3.5.2017, by which, this Court had observed as under:
"It is the contention of the petitioners that without following the procedure prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 31.3.2017, the petitioners have been declared surplus.
It is further the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners belong to reserved category and the respondent no. 2 without declaring the candidates belonging to General category has declared the petitioners who belong to reserved category as surplus, which is in contravention of Rule 27(e) of the MEPS Rules.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 21:23:38 ::: 2
wp2734of2017.odt In that view of the matter, issue notice to respondents returnable after Summer Vacation.
Learned A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Hamdast granted for service on
respondent nos. 4 & 5.
In that view of the matter, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (4)".
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners, who have been declared surplus despite belonging to the various reserved categories and having been protected by Rule 27(e) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, are in employment and their service conditions have been undisturbed till today. Since it is almost three years of such protection, that the Education Officer can be directed to take a fresh call considering the change in circumstances in these last three years.
3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the management submits that this is an old management which has been publishing seniority lists every year and would have no objection if the Education Officer reconsiders the said issue.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that though the management contends that the seniority list was published each year, none of these petitioners have seen the seniority list, much less a copy having been served ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 21:23:38 ::: 3 wp2734of2017.odt upon them.
5. We find that the ends of justice would be met if we direct the management to declare a fresh seniority list within two weeks from today, call for objections within ten days thereafter, and after settling the seniority list, forward the same to the Education Officer so as to enable him to take a decision as regards surplusage of the employees.
6. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed off with the following directions:
a) Respondent No. 4 Education Society shall declare a fresh provisional seniority list with reference to respondent No. 5 School, on or before 20.2.2020. The said provisional seniority list shall be published on the notice board and a copy would be served on these petitioners and similarly situated employees of the said school, on the same day.
b) The management shall call for objections to the seniority list and the concerned employees, who desire to object to the same, shall submit their objections to the Head Master of the School, on or before 29.2.2020.
c) The management shall thereafter take a decision on the said seniority list, on or before 10.3.2020 and shall forward the same to respondent No. 2 Education Officer, on or before ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 21:23:38 ::: 4 wp2734of2017.odt 20.3.2020.
d) Thereafter, the Education Officer shall proceed to take a decision after hearing all the employees as regards whether any employee is surplus in the said school and while doing so, the Education Officer shall keep in mind Rule 27(e) of the MEPS Rules.
e) The Education Officer shall declare its decision, on or before 20.4.2020.
f) In the event, any of the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Education Officer, they shall be at liberty to seek a remedy, as is permissible in law, expeditiously.
g) The protection granted by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2017, shall continue to protect the petitioners till 5.5.2020.
(S.M. Modak, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) Belkhede RS ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 21:23:38 :::