1 wp2710.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2710 OF 2009 Shankar S/o Namdeo Chavan, Age : 45 years, Occ : Service, R/o Shivajinagar, Thermal Road, Parali- Vaijanath, Taluka Parali, District. Beed. ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Beed. 5. Maharashtra Vimukh Jati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shivajinagar, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, Through its President. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.B. Ghadge, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... (CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 7th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of the parties. 2 wp2710.09 2. The petitioner completed his M.A. and B.Ed. on 29th June, 2004. He was appointed as an assistant teacher in the secondary section of the Ashram School, run by the respondent no.5 herein. According to the petitioner, his appointment was approved for the period from 1st June, 1995 to 30th April, 2000. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Primary Ashram School run by respondent no.5. However, his appointment was not approved by respondent no.4. Instead, in 2003-2004, his appointment as an untrained teacher was approved. As stated earlier, the petitioner completed his B.Ed. degree on 29th June, 2004 and claimed that he should be treated as a trained teacher and granted the pay scale of that post. The contention of the petitioner is that since the Primary School, in which he was appointed was functioning from 1st to 7th standards, he was entitled to be considered as a trained graduate teacher from 2004, onwards. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of "State of Maharashtra and others V/s Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari and others reported in "2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1321, he is entitled to be considered as a trained graduate teacher. 4. An affidavit has been filed by the Special District Social Welfare Officer in reply to the petition. He has averred in his affidavit that the petitioner was eligible to be granted the pay scale of a trained graduate teacher only after he acquired the D.Ed. Qualification. In the case of 3 wp2710.09 those teachers, who had the B.Ed. qualification, they would be considered as trained graduate teacher, if they fell within the 25% quota, which could be treated as a trained graduate teachers in primary schools, although the teachers had the B.Ed. And not the D.Ed. qualification. According to the affiant, since the petitioner was not qualified with either the B.Ed. Degree or the D.Ed. till 2004-2005, he was not entitled to be considered as trained graduate teacher. 5. An affidavit has been filed by respondent no.5 through its Secretary, indicating that the petitioner has been paid his salary as an untrained teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 for the academic year 2003-2004 to 2006-2007. It was only after the petitioner acquired the requisite qualification, that he was granted the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards. 6. In our opinion, the Petition can be conveniently disposed of, by directing the the Special District Social Welfare Officer to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order. The Special District Social Welfare Officer is vested with the power to redress the grievances of the employees of ashram schools, relating to employment. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following order : (i) The respondent no.4-the Special District Social Welfare Officer will consider the claim of the petitioner, as to whether he should be 4 wp2710.09 treated as a permanent trained graduate teacher for the period from 29th June, 2004 to 30th April, 2007. (ii) The respondent no.4-the Special District Social Welfare Officer shall also consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary in case, it is found that he can be treated as a trained graduate teacher for the aforesaid period. (iii) While passing an order, the Special District Social Welfare Officer will bear in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Tukaram's case (supra) and other relevant judgements, which may be cited before him. (iv) The respondent no.4 will decide the claim of the petitioner within 12 weeks from today. 7. Rule made absolute, accordingly. No costs. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) ga s/wp2710.09