AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 Bharati H. Dangre, J
[1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.
[2] Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking direction to the Respondents to implement the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, in
pursuance to the Order dated 15/10/2008 passed by this Court.
[3] The Deputy Director of Education, by the said Order, on consideration of the directions, noted the statements on behalf of the Management that,
subsequent to the Petitioner, there were 13 trained teachers, who came to be appointed and their proposals were forwarded and the appointments
were approved. It was only the Petitioner, whose proposal was not forwarded, though he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect
from 01/07/1994. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that on the date of his appointment, he was possessing requisite educational qualification
of B.Ed. and his main subject was “Economics†alongwith “Marathi†and “Geography†as general subjects. In view of the statement
that was made during the course of hearing before the Deputy Director of Education, Deputy Director of Education considered the entire issue and
directed that the Petitioner is entitled to be absorbed from the date on which the post in the Cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers is available.  A
direction was therefore issued that, from the said date on which the said post becomes available, the Petitioner should be granted approval. Â
The Petitioner has thus approached this Court being aggrieved by the nonÂimplementation of the said order.Â
[4] The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that, the statement that was made by the Management before the Deputy Director of
Education on 21/02/2009 was an incorrect statement and, in fact, there were only six teachers, who were appointed subsequent to the Petitioner.Â
Even an attempt is made on the part of Respondents to demonstrate that the said information supplied was not correct.
On consideration of the issue, it is apparent that even if there may not be 13 teachers who were appointed subsequent to the Petitioner, the learned
Assistant Government Pleader would admit that, there were six teachers who were appointed subsequent to the Petitioner in the Cadre of Trained
Graduate Teachers and whose proposals were forwarded and the Deputy Director of Education has specifically issued a direction that the Petitioner
should be absorbed and granted approval from the date on which the post in the Cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers becomes available. The
direction is very clear in view of the statement of facts which is recorded by the Deputy Director of Education by giving details of the other
teachers who have been appointed and also considering their qualification and dates of appointment.
[5] In such circumstances, it is clear that Education Officer has not implemented the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education in pursuance
of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1455 of 2008.
[6] Petition therefore deserves to be allowed by directing Respondent No.3 to immediately take decision in terms of the directions issued by the
Deputy Director of Education and grant approval to the Petitioner from the date on which the vacancy in the Cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers
has become available subsequent to the date of appointment of the Petitioner within four weeks from today.  It is needless to state that the
Petitioner would also be granted all consequential benefits flowing from such placement in the Cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers in terms of the
aforesaid directions. Petitioner is also held entitled for arrears accruing from such placement and such arrears be cleared within a period of three
months from today.
[7] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.