VIMAL NAMDEORAO KURWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for the appearing parties finally by consent.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the present petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher from 12/7/1999 after following due procedure of law by respondent No.5. Her services have been permanently approved. She came to be promoted to the post of Head Mistress of the school run by respondent No.5 in 2005. Permanent approval was also granted to her post as Head Mistress by District Social Welfare Officer, Beed. She is in continuous service on the said post. She was doing her job honestly and sincerely, however, she alleges that the Secretary and the other office bearers of respondent No.5 were interfering with her in day to day working and attempting to dislodge her from services. A detailed representation was made by her on 11/10/2018 to respondent No.3 and requested for an inquiry in respect of her harassment. By pressurizing the petitioner, her signatures were got on the typed copy of application/notice for her voluntary retirement on 2/8/2019. It was shown to be the advance notice of voluntary retirement of three months. Petitioner had no intention to resign from her post and service. By representation dtd. 29/8/2019, she requested to cancel the said application for voluntary retirement. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the controlling and supervising authorities over respondent No.5, ought to have taken appropriate actions against respondent No.5 for not to pass any orders/resolutions, however, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had not taken any action. She had made a representation again on 24/10/2019 to respondent No.5 before the Diwali Vacations of the school stating that she is willing to continue to serve as Head Mistress till the age of attaining superannuation, however, during Diwali vacations, respondent No.5 had passed resolution dtd. 31/10/2019 resolving to permit her to retire voluntarily on the so called application dtd. 2/8/2019. No opportunity of being heard was given to her. Respondent No.5 hurriedly and illegally shown appointment of one Pradip Madhavrao Kulkarni as Head Master of the school in place of petitioner. Immediately on 11/11/2019 she made a representation to respondent No.4 giving all those details and to direct respondent No.5 to cancel the orders. However, no response was given. Petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No.13908 of 2019 before this Court challenging both the orders. The said writ petition is still pending, however, in view of further development, the said writ petition has become infructuous. The respondent No.4 treated the representation of the petitioner dtd. 29/8/2019 as complaint as per Clause (1) of Government Resolution dtd. 3/10/2017 and after issuing notice to respondent No.5 and hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 cancelled the order dtd. 31/10/2019 issued by respondent No.5, on 24/12/2019. When the order of acceptance of retirement of the petitioner was cancelled, the respondent No.5 has been directed by respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to join the post of Head Mistress with immediate effect. The respondent No.5 preferred Writ Petition No.550 of 2020 challenging the said order dtd. 24/12/2019, however, later on respondent No.5 withdrew the said writ petition to avail alternate remedy of appeal. Respondent No.5 filed Appeal No.1 of 2020 before respondent No.3 appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dtd. 17/12/2020 quashed and set aside the order dtd. 24/12/2019 passed by respondent No.4 and remitted the matter back to respondent No.4 for giving the fresh decision. After the matter was remitted, respondent No.4 again by judgment and order dtd. 30/7/2021 cancelled the order passed by respondent No.5 treating the petitioner as voluntary stood retired; directing respondent No.5 to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress and release her salary as per rules.

(3.) Respondent No.5 filed appeal again challenging the said order of respondent No.4 dtd. 30/7/2021. The respondent No.3 is not deciding the said appeal within the stipulated period. In fact, respondent No.5 has not followed M.E.P.S. Rules while passing the resolution and acceptance. Hence, the petitioner has filed present petition to direct respondent No.5 to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress and release of salary.