SANJAY LALBAHADUR DIVEDI Vs. SHRIKRISHNA VYAYAM SHALA SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 4989 of 2009 was closed for judgment after hearing petitioner Santoshkumar in person and advocates for the respondents. Then W.P. 3088 of 2005 where same question arises came up for final hearing & W.P. No. 5196 of 2009 was listed for admission. Later two petitions were heard finally together with consent of all advocates there. They were also informed about the Writ Petition No. 4989 of 2009, already closed for judgment then.

(2.) Writ petition 4989/2009 under Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is fall out of judgment dated 19/9/2005 delivered by me in W.P. 1833/1994 on 19/9/2005 directing Education Officer, Secondary, Z.P. Yavatmal (Resp. 5 there & here) to find out whether time to procure B.Ed. qualification in second proviso to Rule 6 of Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, hereinafter 1981 Rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (1977 Act for short), was/is extended further and whether, therefore, the acquisition of B.Ed. training qualification by Petitioner Santoshkumar was within time. If it was within time, this Court also found that Petitioner would in that case be entitled to reinstatement in service. On 27/10/2005 the respondent 5 education officer issued directions to respondent 3 & 4 to reinstate petitioner as per this judgment. That direction was set aside on 23/11/2005 by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. 5771/2005 after noticing violation of principles of natural justice and education officer was directed to take fresh decision within one month after hearing both sides. Accordingly on 21/1/2006 education officer has given his finding/report that last extension in that respect was till June, 1995 and thereafter time limit is not extended at all. He also recorded contention of petitioner that said time limit was for those untrained teachers who joined before 7/2/1974 or 10/2/1989 and as petitioner came to be appointed on 28/6/1990, government resolution dated 10/2/1994 granting last extension up to June,1995 is not applicable to his case.

(3.) Writ petition has been filed by petitioner through Adv. S. Dhole and at the time of issuing notice in the matter on 1/12/2008 this Court recorded same stand of advocate of petitioner Santoshkumar with further contention that there was no time limit prescribed in cases like his to obtain the training qualification. Said advocate was then heard on 2 or 3 occasions by this Court and after 24/7/2009 the petitioner has started appearing in person. The prayers in the writ petition are :"(i) require respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with back wages & consequential benefit and continuity of services in view of the judgment dated 19/9/2005 in W.P. 1833/1994 as GR no. SSN2690/(108) Secondary Education2 isnot applicable to the petitioner.; (ii) grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of this petition & (iii) saddle the costs of petition upon the respondents". However, no technical objections as to its form or pleas were raised by any of the respondents and the entire arguments have been to demonstrate incorrectness or otherwise of the report or findings dated 21/1/2006 recorded by respondent No. 5.