1 wp 776.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 776 OF 2006 Sandhya D/o Vithalrao Shindgikar, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Service as, an Assistant Teacher in Govindeshwar Primary School, Samarth Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education, Research and Training Council, Pune - 30. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 5. The Head Master, Govindeshwar Primary School, Samarth Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2 wp 776.06 6. The Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune, through its Commissioner. .. Respondents Shri A. V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri D. R. Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri A. J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 777 OF 2006 Raju S/o Shankarrao Mundhkar, Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Service as an assistant teacher, in Sawitribai Phule Primary School, Navi Abadi, Phule Nagar, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education, Research and Training Council, Pune - 30. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. 3 wp 776.06 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 5. The Head Master, Sawitribai Phule Primary School, Navi Abadi, Phule Nagar, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 6. Dr. Radhakrishan Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Guntur, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded through its President. 7. The Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune, through its Commissioner. .. Respondents Shri A. V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri A. J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. The Respondent No. 6 served (Rule). Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 800 OF 2006 Raosaheb S/o Hanmantrao Kunke, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Service as an assistant teacher, in Jijamata Girls Primary School, Phule Nagar, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner 4 wp 776.06 Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education, Research and Training Council, Pune - 30. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 5. The Head Master, Jijamata Girls Primary School, Phule Nagar, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 6. The Maharashtra State Examination Council, 17, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Marg, Pune, through its Commissioner. 7. The Peoples Education Society Beli (Bk) Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded, through its Secretary. .. Respondents Shri A. V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. 5 wp 776.06 Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri A. J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 6 served. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 782 OF 2006 Latabai D/o Lalba Jadhav, Age : 33 Years, Occu. : Service as an assistant teacher in Primary School, Kevala Naik Tanda, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education, Research and Training Council, Pune - 30. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 6 wp 776.06 5. The Head Master, Primary School, Kevala Naik Tanda, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. 6. The Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune, through its Commissioner. .. Respondents Shri A. V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 5 served. Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . A common question arises in the present petitions and, therefore, they have been heard together. The challenge in all these petitions is to the order dated 31st December, 2005 issued by the Director of Education Research and Training Council, Pune, issued to the head masters of the concerned schools. 2. The petitioners in these petitions had been granted admission to the postal D. Ed. course. This course was for a 7 wp 776.06 duration of three years and examinations were to be held twice a year. All the petitioners had sought admission in the academic year 2001-2002 and, therefore, ought to have completed the course by 2005. It appears that all the petitioners though admitted for the course had not completed the IInd Year because they failed in the examination which was held in March 2005. Therefore, all of them appeared for the examination conducted in November, 2005. However, their results were not declared. 03. About 308 persons who had enrolled for the postal D. Ed. course were found ineligible to continue, with the course and their admissions were cancelled. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to consider the grievances of the persons concerned pursuant to certain directions passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 47/2004. The report of the Enquiry Officer is placed on and his observations are as follows : [1] Out of total 1048 cases from 429 schools, 548 teachers from private primary schools have been found to be eligible whereas 308 teachers have been found to be ineligible in the enquiry. Similarly, out of total 192 matters of Ashram Schools, 23 teachers have been held to be ineligible in the enquiry. . In respect of the ineligible cases, by taking 8 wp 776.06 immediate decision, an affidavit in reply will have to be filed before the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad before 15th June, 2005. [2] In respect of the ineligible cases, by taking a decision at the Government level, after taking into consideration the ambiguities in the Government Resolutions dated 2nd June, 2000 and 11th July, 2000, and the fact that the name of concerned teacher appears in the annual inspection report, the issue regarding relaxation of conditions in individual cases will have to be considered. [3] In respect of the ineligible cases as per the Enquiry Report, as the concerned teachers, Management, Head Masters, Extension Officers and other Regional Officers are responsible, further action as per rules will have to be taken in that regard. [4] The record taken in possession at the time of Enquiry are in my custody. As I am retiring on 31st May, 2005, it is requested that orders at Government level be issued, as to in whose custody the said records shall be handed over. If the records are handed over to the school, and matters are filed in court in respect of ineligible cases, ex-parte orders may be passed due to non-availability of evidence in the form of records or against the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee. Taking into consideration this fact, It is requested that I may be informed as to in whose custody, the records, documents in respect of these cases (about full two big cupboards) are to be handed over. 9 wp 776.06 . From private primary schools, total 308 untrained teachers are found to be ineligible. However, out of them about 90% candidates have passed D.Ed. Examination, and since they were admitted for the postal D.Ed. Training, the concerned Education Officers of the respective Districts have given personal approval and there is a possibility that as on today all these candidates are included on the sanctioned posts. . Approximately 80% candidates out of the above candidates are found to be ineligible only because they were not working on a sanctioned posts prior to 5th November, 1997. However, after 5th November, 1997, they are included in the sanctioned posts, which are sanctioned till today, for the various reasons (For example (1) increase in divisions (2) trained teachers leaving the school (3) vacancies on account of retirements. These candidates passing the D.Ed. Examination are working since last 2 to 3 years in the respective schools. Taking into consideration this aspect I am of the clear opinion that, the Government is competent enough to accord sanction to these ineligible candidates as a special case and to regularize their admissions, on fulfilling the following conditions :- [1] If they are continuously working in the school through which their application forms for the Postal D.Ed. scheme are submitted ; [2] If they have passed D.Ed. Examination; 10 wp 776.06 [3] If there is approval by the Education Officer (Primary) [4] If they are working within the present sanctioned strength. In as much as, Vide Government Resolution dated 2nd August, 2004, as a Special Case, the Government has regularized 52 schools on permanent no grant basis and the teachers working therein. On the same basis, it is requested that the admissions of the ineligible teachers to the D.Ed. Course be regularized by imposing severe punitive and administrative action against them.” This report came up for consideration in Writ Petition No. 610/2006 and other connected matters before the Division Bench of (B. R. Gavai & R. M. Borde, JJ.) who by their decision dated 07th December, 2010 have observed as follows : 11] It could thus be seen that the only finding that is given by said Shri Jagtap in his report is that 308 candidates were found to be ineligible for admission. It is further been found that 23 candidates working in the Ashram School were also found to be ineligible. 12] It appears from clause 2 of his finding that he had found that some of the candidates were ineligible since their names were only found in the annual inspection report and, therefore, he has himself observed that the cases of individual 11 wp 776.06 candidates will have to be relaxed taking into consideration the provisions of the Government Resolutions dated 2nd June, 2000 and 11th July, 2000. 13] He has further observed that almost 90% of the candidates had acquired their D .Ed. qualification and that the concerned Education Officer of the respective Zilla Parishads have given personal approvals and, therefore, there is a possibility that all such candidates would be included in the sanctioned posts. It further appears from the said report that 80% of the candidates have been held to be ineligible only on the ground that they were not appointed prior to 5th November, 1997 on the sanctioned posts. It is further observed that, however, subsequently after 5th November, 1997, in view of the various reasons like (1) increase in the divisions (2) Trained Teachers leaving the school (3) Retirement of the teachers etc. Most of the candidates were working from last 2 to 3 years in the respective schools after completion of the D.Ed. course. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, recommends that in view of this, the Government was competent enough to regularize the admissions of such of the candidates (1) who were working in the school through which they had submitted their application forms for Postal D.Ed. Course (2) who had passed D.Ed. Examination. (3) who were granted approval by the Education Officer (Primary) and (4) who were presently working within the sanctioned strength. 14] It is further to be noted that said Enquiry 12 wp 776.06 Officer has recommended that penalty should be imposed on the concerned responsible persons, the management, the officers and admissions of the candidates should be regularized. Perusal of the entire report would reveal that there is not even a whisper about fraud, leave aside, there being any finding to that effect. It is a settled law that allegations regarding fraud have to be specific and it is also necessary to point out as to what act of a person constitutes fraud. A general and bald allegation of fraud would not be tenable in the eyes of law. 04. The Division Bench also found that by a stereo-type order dated 31st December, 2005 admissions to the postal D. Ed. course had been cancelled. Only one or two grounds have been either tick marked while cancelling the admission or some additional grounds had been mentioned. It is evident that, the facts in the present cases and the case before the Division Bench are similar. The only difference is that the petitioners here had not completed their postal D. Ed. before their admissions were cancelled. They in fact, had appeared for the examination, but their results were not declared. 05. In our opinion, the petitioners in the present cases must be granted the same relief as granted to the petitioners in Writ 13 wp 776.06 Petition No. 610/2006, because their results were withheld for no fault on their part. They had in fact, appeared for the examination as scheduled in November 2005. But their results had not been declared. Accordingly, we dispose of these writ petitions by directing the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners of the examination that they undertaken in November, 2005 within eight weeks from today. 06. We accordingly quash and set aside the order dated 31st December, 2005 passed by the Maharashtra State Council of Examination Pune thereby cancelling the performance of the petitioners in their postal D. Ed. course. The order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the Education Officer which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 776/2006 is also set aside. All the consequential orders based on the aforesaid orders are also set aside. The petitions are allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] bsb/March 11