Sau. Bharti Sharad Sontakke vs The Education Officer (Secondary), ... on 10 February, 2016
The petitioner had
applied for the post of Drawing Teacher before the Honourable Supreme
Court had rendered the judgment in Valsammapaul (supra). In the
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:36:02 :::
914-wp-1797-15 5/5
aforesaid set of facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner had played a fraud
while securing the appointment on the post of Drawing Teacher with the
respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since the petitioner was not at fault in seeking
appointment on the post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes in the year
1995, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected, more so
when the petitioner is working as a Drawing Teacher without any complaint
for nearly twenty years. The case of the petitioner is supported by the
decision of this Court dated 21/01/2015 in W.P. No.588 of 2014 where the
relief of protection of services were granted in similar set of facts.