Kishor Dilip Hulsure v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 WP / 12708 / 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 956 WRIT PETITION NO.12708 OF 2021 KISHOR DILIP HULSURE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Solanke Shikrashna B. AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. K.N. Lokhande Advocate for the respondents no. 3 and 4 : Mr. B.T. Bodkhel ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 4 OCTOBER 2022 ORAL ORDER (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :

It is not in dispute that approval has been granted to petitioner's appointment from 01-08-2012 to 06-09-2014 and again from 15-06-2019 to 06-06-2020 on the post of Shikshan Sevak. On completion of 3 years of service as Shikshan Sevak, further approval has been granted to the post of Shikshan Sevak with effect from 07-06-2020. The petitioner's grievance was in respect of intervening period of 07-09-2014 to 14-06-2019. A proposal was sent by the Headmaster on 10-08-2020 to the Education Officer for grant of approval for that intervening period. By impugned communication dated 20-10-2021, the Education Officer has rejected the proposal solely on the ground that during the period from 07-09-2014 to 14-06-2019, vacant post was not available.

2 WP / 12708 / 2021 2.

Mr. Solanke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites our attention to clause 11 of the Government Resolution dated 27-06-2016. He submits that under clause 11, a special provision is made in respect of those teachers who are rendered surplus on account of the staffing pattern on 2013-14 and 2014-15 who are required to be brought as surplus on the staffing pattern sanctioned for the year 2015-16. He would further submit that the correct interpretation of clause 12 is that in the event of such surplus Shikshan Sevaks completing 3 years on the day of issuance of Government Resolution dated 27-06-2016, they are required to be granted continuity of service.

3.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 20-10-2021, it is seen that though the Government Resolution dated 27-06-2016 is referred to therein, the effect of clause 11 has not been considered. 4.

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 20-102021 and direct the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of clause 11 of the Government Resolution dated 27-06-2016.

5.

We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the matter and all the issues in this regard are kept open. The

3 WP / 12708 / 2021 Education Officer is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of four months from today.

6.

Writ petition is disposed of.

[ SANDEEP V. MARNE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/