ALIGAVE MAHESH GURULINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned Counsel. Heard finally by consent of the parties. The petitioner is a highly qualified teacher with M.A., M.Ed., and M. Phil qualifications. The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak for the period from 1 July, 2005 until 30 June, 2000 by the management of a D. Ed. College. The management is represented by the Fourth and fifth respondents. Pursuant to the order of appointment dated 1 July, 2005, a proposal for approval was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education, Pune, the second respondent, who granted his approval on 27 February, 2006 to the appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak on an aided division of the D. Ed. College for the period from 1 July, 2005 to 30 June, 2008. The petitioner completed a period of three years as a Shikshan Sevak and was appointed on a regular post. A proposal for the grant of regular pay scale was submitted to the second respondent. By an order dated 19 December, 2008, the second respondent granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner in a regular post and on a pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with effect from 1 July, 2008.

(2.) On 9 August, 2010, an order was passed by the second respondent by which the period during which approval was granted to the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak initially and subsequently as an Assistant Teacher, has been modified. As a Shikshan Sevak, the approval was initially granted to the petitioner between 1 July, 2005 and 30 June, 2008. The approval has now been restricted to the period between 14 September 2005 and 16 December, 2007; and 1 October, 2008 and 28 June, 2009. Similarly, as an Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was granted approval initially from 1 July, 2008, but by the impugned order, the approval has been granted with effect from 29 August, 2009. For the period which is excluded from the original approval, the petitioner is declared as 'excess'. A direction has been issued that the petitioner would not be entitled to his salary for the period where he has now been declared as excess. Consequent upon this, recoveries were initiated against the petitioner and the Court is informed that for about one year an amount of Rs. 17,000/- per month was recovered from his salary.

(3.) An affidavit-in-reply has been filed in these proceedings on behalf of first, second and third respondents. In the affidavit-in-reply it has been stated that the staffing pattern shows that in the aided division of the D. Ed. College, there was, inter alia, one post of a Principal and four posts of Lecturers/Assistant Teachers, which were approved. According to the affidavit, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak which became vacant due to the promotion of Mr. S.T. Chandane as a Principal. Since the aforesaid person did not have work experience required for the post of Principal, approval was granted to him for the period from 1 June, 2004 to 13 September, 2005 and he was placed in his original post of Lecturer in the D. Ed. College. Hence it has been stated that the petitioner has become excess as a Shikshan Sevak from 1 July, 2005 to 13 September, 2005. Subsequently, Mr. S.T. Chandane acquired work experience and approval was granted to him on 14 September 2005. However, he left service. In his vacancy, one Mr. M.V. Palse was appointed as a Principal with effect from 17 January, 2007. Since he too was not duly qualified for the post of Principal, approval was granted to him on an in-charge basis from 17 December, 2007 to 30 September 2008. During this period, it has been stated that the petitioner became excess. Mr. M.V. Palse acquired the qualifications required for the post of Principal and approval was granted with effect from 1 October, 2008.