Bombay High CourtWP/8363/2009dismissedrule discharged

Amar Ashok Kadtane v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2015-04-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A. I. S. Cheema2 pages

1 WP8363.09

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8363 OF 2009 Amar Ashok Kadtane .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents Shri Sachin J. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri S. A. Ambade, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 1 Shri V. D. Hon, Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 Shri L. C. Patil and Shri Amit T. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE :

13TH APRIL, 2015.

PER COURT :

1) Mr. Salgare the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner possesses the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education. The petitioner was appointed in leave vacancy on 11.06.1997 for the academic year, 1997 - 1998. The appointment of petitioner was continued. Subsequently petitioner is confirmed in service. The respondent did not grant approval to the petitioner as a Trained Graduate Teacher. The petitioner is entitled for the benefits of a Trained Graduate Teacher from June

2 WP8363.09 2002 and the petitioner will be deemed to be approved as Assistant Teacher from 2002. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner would come within the meaning of 25% as stipulated by Government Resolution dated 17.01.2001. The order dated 30 th May, 2009, passed by the Education Officer is per-se and ex-facie illegal. 2) Mr. Mukhedkar the learned counsel for the Management submits that, since 2006 - 2007 petitioner is not in service and petitioner is a Secretary of another institution is a Principal of the school run by another institution. 3) The Averrments made in the affidavit-in-reply do not seem to have been controverted. The averrments in the affidavit show that the petitioner is not serving in the respondent / school after 2006 - 2007 and is a Principal of another school run by another institution of which he is a Secretary. 4) In light of the above, we do not see any error committed by the authority while passing the impugned order. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

[ A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] sam/April. 15