Almasmiya Asefmiya Fakir And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 295 OF 2018 1] Almasmiya S/o Asefmiya Fakir Age 31 yrs, Occu. Service At present Nil, R/o Gautam Nagar,Walwadi Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule 2] Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha Gautam Nagar, Walwadi, Dhule Tq. & Dist.Dhule Through its President Sanjay Bhavan Bhamre Age 38 years, Occ : Service R/o Gautam Nagar, Gondur Road, Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule Subhash Tanaji Vasave Age 42 years, Occ - Headmaster Bhagai Prathamik Vidyamandir Gondur Road, Walwadi-Dhule Tq. and Dist.Dhule R/o 48-Deomogra Colony, Wadel Road, Walwadi-Dhule Tq.& Dist.Dhule.
.. PETITIONERS
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32 2] The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune
2 946 The Deputy Director of Education Nashik Region, Nashik 4] The Education Officer Zilla Parishad (Primary) Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule.
.. RESPONDENTS ...
Shri G.R.Syed,Advocate for petitioners Shri S.B.Yawalkar,AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Shri R.S.Pawar,Advocate for respondent No.4.
...
CORAM : R.M.BORDE & MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.
DATE : 23/10/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER R.M.BORDE,J.] :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final decision at admission stage.
2] The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla parishad, Dhule on 25/9/2017 directing recovery of amount of Rs.4,32,212/- from the petitioner. It is recorded in the order impugned in this petition that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 15/6/2011 and the then Education Officer has accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was paid wages for the period commencing from 15/6/2011 onwards. However, according to the Education Officer, since
3 946 there was no sanction accorded to the 10th post filled in by the Education institution, the amount paid towards salary of such employee i.e. petitioner is liable to be recovered. The petitioner contends that in fact the Education Officer has accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner on 15/6/2011 and the employee / petitioner has also been accorded status of the confirmed employee. It has not been substantiated that the petitioner has been appointed against the 10th post of the Assistant Teacher and that the aforesaid 10th post in the Education institution has not been approved by the State Government. Since appointment of the petitioner has been approved by the Education Officer and not only that the petitioner has been granted status of confirmed employee, and that the order according approval to the appointment of petitioner has not yet been revoked, it was impermissible for the Education Officer to direct recovery of salary paid to the petitioner, from 2011 onwards.
4] The order passed by the Education Officer on 25/9/2017 is without application of mind to the record of the case and as such the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) (R.M.BORDE,J.) umg/