In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has allowed a petition challenging the Education Officer's refusal to approve the continuity of service of an Assistant Teacher. The Division Bench, comprising Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, held that the Education Officer had misinterpreted the Government Resolution and could not retract their earlier approval.
Brief Facts:
The case involved the petitioner, who had served as a Shikshan Sevak (trained graduate teacher) in the school run by the Management for three years. Despite completing the probationary period, the respondents denied approval for the continuity of service. The petitioner's father, who was a peon in the same school, had passed away, making the petitioner eligible for compassionate employment as a trained undergraduate teacher.
Initially, there was no teaching vacancy, so the petitioner accepted a junior clerk position. However, after acquiring additional qualifications, the petitioner became eligible for a teaching post. Following the Government Resolution, the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak for another three years, transitioning from a non-teaching to a teaching role. The Education Officer approved this appointment, and the petitioner completed the probationary period.
Surprisingly, the same Education Officer later overturned their own opinion and refused approval for continuity, citing an alleged procedural violation during the initial appointment. The court found this reasoning to be flawed and stated that the Education Officer had misinterpreted the Government Resolution.
Observations by the Court:
The court emphasized that equal opportunities should be provided to all aspirants, as mandated by the Constitution. However, compassionate appointments for dependents of deceased employees are exceptions to this rule. In this case, the petitioner had been granted a compassionate appointment in 2010, was regularized in a Group-D post, and subsequently approved for a change in cadre to a teaching post.
The court held that once the Education Officer had approved the petitioner's appointment and confirmed their probationary period, the approval for continuity could not be withheld. The Management itself had sought approval for continuity, indicating that the petitioner's services were found to be satisfactory. The court found it unjustifiable for the Education Officer to reverse their opinion and refuse approval.
The decision of the Court:
Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Education Officer was directed to approve the continuity of service within four weeks. The court also ordered the release of grant-in-aid for the petitioner's monthly salary.
Case Name: Dinesh Sudam Patil and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Coram: Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4174 OF 2022
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr NV Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate, with Vinayak Kumbhar, i/b AN Bandiwadekar
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr NC Walimbe, AGP.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://pixabay.com/illustrations/search/teacher/
