AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Deshpande, J
Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-7-2017 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, cancelling the approval dated 31-12-2014, granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the respondent No.5- the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, has dismissed the appeal against the said order on 27-4-2018. Hence, both these orders are subject-matter of challenge in this petition claiming the further relief of continuation of approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the month of August, 2016.
The undisputed position is that the petitioner was appointed in response to the advertisement dated 25-11-2014 on the post of Shikshan Sevak. The order of appointment was issued on 8-12-2014. This appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 31-12-2014. Accordingly, the petitioner received her salary from 8-12-2014 to July, 2016. However, the salary of the petitioner is stopped from the month of August, 2016 on the ground that there is reduction in one post and, therefore, the petitioner becomes surplus. Thereafter, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 4-7-2017. The petitioner received her salary up to 1-7-2017. Thereafter, the salary of grants have not been released by the Government.
It is not in dispute that out of 27 posts of teachers, due to reduction in the number of students, one post was reduced during the academic session 2016-17. However, on 30-11-2016, one Smt. Mukta Talegaonkar, a permanent teacher, stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation and subseqently, on 31-12-2017, another teacher, Smt. Sandhya Bansod, also attained the age of superannuation. As a result, two posts became available and the petitioner can be continued in one of these two posts. These aspects have not been taken into consideration either by the Education Officer or by the Deputy Director of Education in the orders impugned, which have material bearing on the question of continuation of the approval to the appointment of the petitioner, granted on 31-12-2014. In view of this, the matter will have to be remitted back to the Education Officer to take into consideration these aspects and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties concerned.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 27-4-2018 passed by the respondent No.5- the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, as well as the order dated 4-7-2017 passed by the respondent No.2- the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Education Officer to consider the question of continuation of approval to the appointment of the petitioner after taking into consideration the subsequent events. The parties to appear before the Education Officer on 30-9-2019. After hearing the parties concerned, the Education Officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties before him.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.