wp4096-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4096 OF 2011 The Chairman, Bhairavnath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (Salshinge) Vita and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.V.Bansode for petitioners Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for State Mr.Kiran Arjun Nikam for respondent No.3 Mr.Sukand Kulkarni for respondent No.4 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th August 2011. P.C.: 1] Petitioners are aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 14th March 2011 passed by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli (for short the officer). 2] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 21st June 2005. After the wp4096-11.doc 2 requisite period of three years, she has been appointed as Assistant Teacher. Her both appointments viz., Shikshan Sevak as well as Assistant Teacher have been approved by the Officer. Respondent No.4 and the petitioner No.2 both are Graduates in Arts and Science and possess Bachelor degree in Education. 3] It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.4 had a relation at the relevant time as Head Master. He had recommended that respondent No.4's appointment be approved in the B.Ed. Scale. However, respondent No.4 in the year 2005 itself had indicated that he should not be granted any such scale because he had not claimed either promotion or any higher pay scale. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 27th January 2005 stated to have been signed by respondent No.4, a copy of which is at Annexure E page 47. Reliance is also placed on a Sammati Patra/ Undertaking of respondent No.4 who is stated to have signed on the same on 19th July 2006. He had stated, according to the petitioners, that he was wp4096-11.doc 3 working in D.Ed. Scale prior to 1st December 2004. Even on 19th July 2006, he was drawing that scale. He does not desire to have a pay scale of B.Ed. In other words, he does not seek any escalation or revision of his pay scale. Yet, the Officer has passed an order ignoring these documents and holding that there could not have been two teachers being given the B.Ed scale. Such an order has seriously prejudiced the petitioner No.2 who is 70% handicapped lady teacher. 4] Now as a result of the impugned order, she is not allowed to teach and report for duties by the Head Master, respondent No.3. 5] On the other hand, respondent No.4 who is contesting respondent argued that neither any such letter nor any undertaking/ sammati patra has been given by him and the Officer has rightly passed an order after hearing all concerned and such order need not be interfered with. wp4096-11.doc 4 6] The affidavit is filed by the Education Officer who has stated that unless and until the respondent No.4 had been repatriated in B.Ed scale by specific order and that specific vacancy created in D.Ed scale was filled in by approval from respondent No.2, the unilateral act of petitioner No.1 in granting such scale to petitioner No.2 cannot be sustained and has been rightly set aside. 7] After hearing both sides and perusing with their assistance the petition and all annexures thereto, including the affidavit filed by the Officer, I am of the view that considering the contents of the documents which do not seem to have been referred to by the Education Officer, it would be appropriate to set aside his order dated 14th March 2011 and remit the case back for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioners will have an opportunity to place before the Officer the relevant documents, including the letter of respondent No.4 dated 27th January 2005 and the undertaking dated 19th July 2006 and arguing on that basis that the wp4096-11.doc 5 petitioner No.2 is the only teacher entitled to B.Ed scale as between the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4. Even the petitioner No.2 can point out that all her earlier appointments have been duly approved. Equally, it will be open for respondent No.4 to argue that the documents produced are not genuine or do not bear his signature and on the basis thereof, he cannot be deprived of the benefits permissible to him in law. This case so also the objection that signature of respondent No.4 has been obtained on blank papers and the contents thereof are filled in thereafter, are open for being agitated before the respondent No.2. 8] The Officer shall deal with all the contentions and after perusing the relevant documents and records take necessary decision as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from today. The Officer should give opportunity to all parties including the concerned teachers and the management so also the Head Master to appear before him. Each one of them will cooperate in early disposal of this wp4096-11.doc 6 case. Petition is disposed of in the above terms but by clarifying hat until the Officer decides the issue, the appointments and pay scales of both, petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed. Their present appointments shall continue without prejudice to their rights ad contentions and until the officer renders fresh decision. This means that appointment of both petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 so also their pay scales are protected and they may be both allowed to work and the respondent No.3, Head Master will await final decision of the Officer. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)