High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 10 BOM CK 0086

Sanjay Shankar Gilbile vs State Of Maharashtra Through Department Of Education And Ors.

Bombay High Court · Decided on 11 October 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. R. Gavai , J · M. S. Karnik, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1574 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 361 words

B.R. Gavai, J

1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2] By way of the above Petition, the Petitioner who is a teacher has approached this Court being aggrieved by refusal by the Respondent â€

Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not been granted approval on the ground that in view of

Government Resolution dated 02/05/2012, there was a ban on recruitment of teachers and as such, appointments made by the management are illegal.

3] Mr. Kalel learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has vehemently opposed the Petition.

4] The issue is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.8587 of 2016 with connected Writ Petitions vide

its judgment dated 10th July, 2017 has observed in para 7 as under:Â​

“7. In that view of the matter, we find that in view of subsequent GRs and in view of the view taken by Division Bench of this Court, the ban

would not be applicable to three categories, one where the recruitment process is already commenced prior to GR dated 2nd May, 2012, second, in so

far as the appointment made for the subjects of English, Maths and Science are concerned and third, where the recruitment is made to fulfil the

backlog of reserved category candidates.â€​

5] Undisputedly, the Petitioner is appointed to teach English with effect from 02/09/2013 and as such, he is squarely covered by the judgment of

Division Bench of this Court, cited supra.

6] In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15/01/2018 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to

grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 02/09/2013 as a Shikshan Sevak for three years and thereafter

as Assistant Teacher and to pay the Petitioner his regular salary from the month of November, 2018 and all arrears of salary from the date of

appointment of the Petitioner till October, 2018 shall be cleared within a period of three months from today.

7] Rule is made absolute accordingly.