NARENDRA SAKHARAM JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions were heard at the stage of motion hearing itself making rule returnable forthwith with consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State and its authorities so also the other learned counsel appearing for other some of the respondent,s though some of them were only nominal parties and, therefore, no service was found to be necessary on some of them. Further since the common question involved in all these petitions is the effect of the de-recognition of the Two-Year Diploma in teaching Course (Dip. T.) of the erstwhile Sagar University and now as Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya, Sagar and Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN Writ Petition Nos. 2771/97, 2772/97, 2773/97, 2774/97 and 2775/97 each of the petitioners therein have obtained Dip. T. Two-Years Course of Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya, Sagar. Each of them joined and completed the said course respectively on (1) 17-7-1992 and 30-4-1994, (2) 1-8-1991 and 30-4-1993 (3) 19-7-1992 and 30-4-1994, (4) 13-8-1991 and 30-4-1993 and (5) 1-8-1991 and 30-4-1993. Thus all these 5 petitioners had joined the course prior to 31-5-1993 on which date the Government Resolution in this respect, to which we will refer at a latter stage, came to be issued by the State of Maharashtra. All these petitioners further were appointed by order dated 15-11-1996 issued separately in relation to each of them on the post of Primary Teacher by the Chief Executive officer of the Zilla Parishad, Buldana, since they were found as having been selected by the District Selection Committee, Buldana. The appointments were, however, made subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the appointment was subject to the interim orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.5749/95 with other petitions, delivered on 24-7-1996, (correct date appears to be 27-7-1996) since, the order further says, Diploma in teaching is not equivalent to the Diploma in Education (D. Ed.) and that they were appointed in the pay-scale of untrained Primary Teachers and were required to successfully pass the Examination of Diploma in Education within five years from the date of appointment and consent letter from each of them was also got executed by the Chief Executive Officer indicating their consent for having been appointed on certain conditions including those referred to hereinabove. The petitioners, after joining the post of Primary Teachers under these orders, however, made representations to the Chief Executive Officer, Akola for deletion of these conditions and prayed for issuing order of appointment as trained teachers, inviting attention to certain orders passed by the Courts and Government including some Government Resolutions. Since nothing immediately was done, the petitioners approached this Court in the year 1997 by filing these petitions. They prayed for a declaration of the condition nos. 7, 8 and 9 incorporated in the consent/guarantee letter, one of which is at Annexure-D in Writ Petition No.2771 of 1997, being arbitrary and illegal as they treat the petitioners as untrained teachers, though they are trained teachers, each of them having Dip. T. and further are entitled to benefits admissible to the trained teachers. They seek further direction regarding difference of arrears of salary payable to them as admissible from the date of joining the duties as per rules and for enlistment in the seniority list accordingly, of primary teachers by inserting their names at appropriate places.

(3.) IN writ petition no. 3252 of 1998 the petitioners completed Dip. T. course in Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, INdore by joining the said course on 2-9-1994. They were appointed as Assistant Teachers by identically worded orders issued separately on 31-7-1997 and 26-11-1997 respectively and were posted in Dnyanadeep Ashram School at Tambola, of which respondent no. 2 is Head master, with effect from 2-8-1997 and 8-12-1997 respectively. Respondent No.4 District Social Welfare Officer, Buldana, by his communications dated 30-5-1998 and 5-8-1998 since expressed his inability to grant approval, the petitioners were served with notices of termination of their appointments on 29-9-1998, Annexures E and E-1, intimating them that their services will stand terminated from 28-10-1998. By the communication dated 5-8-1998 the respondent no. 4 District Social Welfare Officer had expressed his inability to grant recognition to the petitioners' appointment since Dip. T. was not equivalent to D. Ed. Course. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the instant petition in October 1998 claiming relief of declaration that the Government Decision dated 22-4-1997, Annexure-H, Government Decision dated 31-5-1993, Annexure M, respondent Nos. 4's communication dated 5-8-1998, Annexure-F refusing grant of approval, so also the notices of termination dated 29-9-1998 Annexures E and E-1 to be void and illegal and for grant of consequential reliefs.