SOU. SWATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.U. Ghude, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri V.K. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 and 5. None appears for the respondent no.6, though served.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13/8/2019, passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner was directed to join the respondent no.6 - School as an Assistant Teacher. It is worthwhile to note that the petitioner was declared surplus in the list submitted by the Management, to which objections were sought on 01/08/2019. The petitioner did not raise any objection. The hearing of those persons, who had objected, was conducted on 8/08/2019 and the final list was declared on 9/8/2019. On 13/8/2019, when the counselling was conducted, the petitioner had given the respondent no.6 - School as her choice. Accordingly, on 13/8/2019, the order of absorption of the petitioner, with the respondent no.6 - School was received, however, the petitioner did not join the respondent no.6 - School. On the contrary, the petitioner filed the present petition, in which, an order of status quo came to be passed on 7/10/2019, based upon the statement that though the petitioner was senior, she was declared surplus. It appears that the position that the petitioner had not objected to the list of surplus teachers, submitted by the Management and had given her choice of respondent no.6 - School in the counselling on 13/8/2019, was not disclosed to the Court, as a result of which, an order of status quo came to be passed on 7/10/2019.