Ms. Priyanka Dashrath Godambe @ Ms. Priyanka Uttam Madke And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary School Education Dept. And ANR

35. WP 8548-21.doc Chittewan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8548 OF 2021 Ms. Priyanka Dashrath Godambe And Another ...

Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, And Another ...

Respondents *** Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar i/b Ms. Ashwini Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

*** CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JJ.

DATE : 15 JUNE 2022 P. C. :

.

Petitioner No.1 seems to be appointed in the year 2008. The approval is granted to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 with effect from the year 2008. The Petitioner claims to have been transferred to the aided post with effect from 1 April 2016. The proposal for the transfer of the Petitioner is approved by Education Officer under the Order dated 15 March 2017. The Petitioner applied for Shalartha I.D. The Education Officer forwarded the said proposal to the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education appears to have directed to consider the proposal granted. The Education Officer thereafter refused the proposal. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned AGP for the Respondent-State.

1/2

35. WP 8548-21.doc Chittewan It needs to be considered that the proposal seeking approval to the transfer of Petitioner No.1 from unaided post to aided post was already granted by the Education Officer under Order dated 15 March 2017. The said Order could not have been reviewed by the Education Officer. The Order can be set aside only by the higher officer. Be that as it may. The Petitioner's appointment to an aided post is also approved with effect from the year 2008. It would be too late now to contend that while Petitioner No.1 was appointed, Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977 was not followed. Petitioner No.1 claims to belong to OBC Category. The Order no where states as to how Rule has not been adhered to.

The Education Officer has not clarified detailed as to how the reservation policy was not adhered to. If the post is available for the OBC category, then certainly Petitioner No.1 was entitled to be appointed. After a long slumber, the same ought to have been gone into when twice the approval was granted to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 once on unaided post and subsequently upon transfer to the aided post. In the light of that, the impugned Order 21 May 2020 is quashed and set aside. The proposal shall be forwarded by the Education Officer for grant of Shalarth I.D. to Petitioner No.1 within four weeks from today and thereafter a decision be taken to issue Shalarth I.D. to Petitioner No.1 within two months thereafter. Consequential benefits shall follow. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2022.06.18 10:22:13 +0530 (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN 2/2