Rahul Namdev Patil And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS
1 8. WP 2827-21..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2827 OF 2021 Rahul Namdev Patil and Ors.
... Petitioners Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
... Respondents ------- Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S. B. Kalel, Learned AGP for State- Respondents. ------- CORAM :
R.D. DHANUKA & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE :
22ND SEPTEMBER 2021 P.C. :
1.
Rule. Learned AGP waives service for respondents. Petition is heard finally by consent of parties.
2.
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners has impugned the order dated 2nd March 2021 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.1 for the post of peon in the petitioner no. 3 -school run by the petitioner no. 2. 3.
It is not disputed that petitioner no. 1 was appointed to the said post of peon after following due procedure with effect from 2nd
2 8. WP 2827-21..odt December 2011. Petitioners no. 2 and 3 submitted a proposal for the appointment of petitioner no. 1 in 15th June 2012. 4.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that respondent no. 2 while rejecting the approval has relied upon the Government Resolutions dated 23rd October 2013, 28th January 2019 and 7th March 2019.
5.
Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the resolutions dated 23rd October 2013, 28th January 2019 and 7th March 2019, which are pressed in service by the Education officer were issued after the date of appointment of the petitioner no.1 with effect from 15th June 2012.
6.
Learned counsel invited our attention to an unreported judgment delivered in 19th January 2021 in the case of Mr. Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors in Writ Petition No. 3525/2019 and submits that the these three resolutions would apply with prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Learned AGP could not distinguish the said judgment dated 19th January 2021 in case of Shrikrishna Bhikaji
3 8. WP 2827-21..odt Bondge (Supra) and could not dispute the fact that petitioner no.1 was appointed for the post of peon with effect from 15th June 2012. 7.
In our view, the Government Resolutions dated 23rd October 2013, 28th January 2019 and 7th March 2019, would not apply with retrospective effect and thus, would not apply to the appointment of petitioner no. 1 made with effect from 15th June 2012. The reliance placed on those three resolutions by the learned Education officer (Secondary) in impugned order, is without application of mind and shows perversity.
8.
The impugned order passed by the Education Officer is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this court in case of Shrikrishna Bhikaji Bondge (Supra) and in catena of decision taking the same view and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9.
We accordingly pass the following order:- a) The impugned order dated 16th February 2017 is quashed and set aside.
b) The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to appointment of petitioner no.1 to the said post of peon with
4 8. WP 2827-21..odt effect from 15th June 2012, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
c) We also direct respondent no.2 to release grant in aid of payment of salary of petitioner no.1 since the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits, which shall be released within four weeks from the date of granting approval to the appointment of petitioner no.1 for the said post.
d) The name of the petitioner no.1 shall be also entered in the Shalarth Pranali within two weeks from granting approval. without fail.
10.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 11.
Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.
Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)