1 wp1225-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1225/2010 Tanzeemi Center Deopur Dhule through President and others. .. Petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents .... Mr.M.C.Syed,Adv.for petitioners. Mr.T.S.Lodhe,AGP for respondents 1 & 2. Mr.P.S.Patil,Adv.for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 19th DECEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER : 1] The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 2 wp1225-10.odt India for giving directions to respondent nos.1 to 3 that they should give approval in respect of petitioner nos.3 and 4 as Assistant Teachers and they should recall the order dated 17/2/2004 by which approval is given as Shikshan Sevak. Both sides are heard. 2] Petitioner nos.3 and 4 are working with petitioner no.1 society registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act. The society is running a Urdu primary school at Deopur, Dhule. It is contended that petitioner nos.3 and 4 came to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in the school by petitioner no.1 on 3/5/98 and 30/9/99 respectively and the first order was for a period of two years. It is contended that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 forwarded the proposal to respondents for giving approval in respect of appointments as Assistant Teacher but the approvals are given as Shikshan Sevaks. It is contended that petitioner nos.3 and 4 were appointed against the vacancies which had occurred due to the resignations of two teachers viz. Sadiya Bano and Adisunnisa. It is contended that though the School Tribunal had decided the matter in favour of these two teachers, the decision was challenged by petitioner nos. 3 wp1225-10.odt 1 and 2 in Writ Petition Nos.4773/02 and 2463/03 and interim relief was granted by this Court in favour of the institution on 10/9/03. 3] It is the case of petitioner nos.3 and 4 that the scheme of Shikshan Sevaks was started as per Government Resolution dated 20/4/2000 and as they were appointed prior to 20/4/2000, they could not have been appointed as Shikshan Sevaks. It is further contended that in similar circumstances, the respondents were adviced by District Government Pleader to give appointments to teachers working in Lalit Makhan Prathmik Vidya Mandir Chalisgaon Road, Dhule as Assistant Teachers. It is further contended that on the date of the approval, the petitioners had completed three years of service and so approval could have been granted as Assistant Teachers. 4] Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit in reply. It is contended that on the ground of delay and latches, the petition is not tenable. It is contended that the petitioners have challenged the order of approval passed in the year 2004 and the petition was not properly 4 wp1225-10.odt prosecuted for about two years from the year 2008. It is contended that false contentions are made by the petitioner nos.3 and 4 in respect of their appointments against two terminated teachers. It is contended that the appointment of petitioner no.3 Raisuddin was shown to be made on a post which was in respect of a division of the school which was not receiving grant in aid. It is contended that School Tribunal had given decision in favour of the previous two teachers who were working as Assistant Teachers and only after getting interim stay from this Court, the institution made proposal in respect of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 [on 12/1/2004]. It is contended that affidavits were filed by petitioner nos.3 and 4 for giving undertaking that they were expecting approval subject to the decision of Writ Petitions which were pending in this Court. It is contended that when the application for approval was submitted by the institution, the scheme of Shikshan Sevaks was already started and so the approval was given as Shikshan Sevaks. It is contended that as the initial appointments were the first appointments, approval of petitioners as Shikshan Sevaks was correctly given. 5 wp1225-10.odt 5] It is not disputed that post of petitioner no.3 came to be approved as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 7/6/2007 and petitioner no.4 came to be approved as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 2/9/2006. As per the record, the appointment of petitioner no.3 Raisuddin is shown as Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 7/6/2004 and this date is 2/9/2003 in respect of petitioner no.4. It is not disputed that only after giving of interim relief by this Court in the Writ Petitions filed against the decision of School Tribunal by the institution, the proposal for approval was submitted by the institution. Copy of compromise purshis filed in Writ Petition No.4773/02 is filed by petitioners. In view of the consent terms filed by the institution and previous two Assistant Teachers (Sadiabano and Adisunnisa) the previous teachers were held to be entitled to claim the difference of salary amount from the respondents. They did not press for other relief. This order came to be passed on 13/8/09 and the Writ Petitions filed by the institution came to be disposed of. 6] A copy of the approval in respect of employee Raisuddin 6 wp1225-10.odt respondent no.3 is on the record and it shows that the approval in respect of appointment of this teacher was given in respect of the division to which no grant was sanctioned by the Government. Similarly, there was approval in respect of appointments of four other teachers and they were also shown as against the divisions which had no grant in aids. All these circumstances need to be kept in mind while considering the decision given by respondents for approval on the posts of Shikshan Sevak to the appointments of the petitioner nos.3 and 4. The advocate of petitioner relied mainly on Government Resolution dated 22/12/1995 and one case reported in 2006 (2) Bom.C.R. 768 [Bharati Manu Mandhora and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others]. In that case, the petitioners were appointed as primary school teachers in the year 1979. The petitioners in that case were already appointed as permanent Assistant Teachers and as such, the Government had accorded approval to their posts. There was transfer of the teachers to secondary section in the year 2002-03 and so there was some dispute. Thus, the facts were totally different. There is no dispute on the point that when the posts are lying vacant due to 7 wp1225-10.odt pendency of some litigation, appointments to the new teachers can be given as against such posts and they can be made subject to the decision of the matters pending in the Court. There are peculiar circumstances of this case and further from the record, it can be said that the petitioners were not appointed by following the procedure of the recruitment. The date of resignation of previous employees is shown as the date of appointment of atleast one of the petitioners. It was submited for the petitioners that this point is not involved in the present dispute but this point also cannot be ignored in view of the nature of dispute. Thus, the view taken by the respondents about granting of approval first as Shikshan Sevaks and after completion of three years of service from the date of first approval as Assistant Teacher appears to be reasonable and proper. 7] Above all, the order of the respondents of the year 2004 came to be challenged in the year 2008 and the petitioners did not take steps for getting interim relief or for urgent hearing for about two years from the date of institution of the petition. In view of 8 wp1225-10.odt these circumstances, as there are latches on the part of the petitioners, on that ground also, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. No interference is warranted from this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition stands rejected. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp1225-10