LAWS(BOM)-2024-5-135

RAJU GOVIND SHINGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On May 08, 2024
Raju Govind Shingade Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns the order dtd. 31/12/2014 passed by the Education Officer-Respondent No.2, thereby rejecting the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of 'Shikshan Sevak.' Petitioner has further challenged the similar order dtd. 16/2/2022 passed on subsequent proposal dtd. 17/8/2021, seeking approval to his appointment in pursuance of the order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.72 of 2015.

(2.) Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submit that in response to the advertisement dtd. 28/5/2010 issued by respondent No.3, petitioner applied for appointment on the post of "Shikshan Sevak". After going through the selection process an appointment order dtd. 15/6/2010 came to be issued in his favour. Petitioner joined his services as 'Assistant Teacher' with respondent No.3-School. Consequently, on 29/12/2014, proposal seeking approval to his appointment was moved by the Management. However, Respondent No.2-Education Officer, vide his order dtd. 31/12/2014, declined to entertain said proposal referring to certain deficiencies, that proposal is not accompanied with certified copies of the educational qualifications of the petitioner and that, petitioner's appointment is made during the period of Ban on recruitment and that the post of graduate teacher has been reduced from staffing pattern of the school.

(3.) In pursuance of aforesaid order passed by Respondent No.2-Education Officer, Management terminated services of the petitioner. Petitioner was compelled to approach the School Tribunal at Solapur vide Appeal No.72 of 2015 assailing termination order. His Appeal came to be allowed directing reinstatement in service. The Management complied the order of the School Tribunal and reinstated the petitioner. On reinstatement, again, proposal was forwarded to respondent No.2-Education Officer. However, respondent No.2 declined to entertain the proposal, giving selfsame reasons that as per the staffing pattern for 2013-2014, post of trained graduate teacher has been reduced.