AGK AGK AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2374 OF 2005 Mrs.Ujwala Sadgurunath Dongarge ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.P. Thakar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. This petition challenges an order dated 3-3-2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai. The Petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.303 of 2005, which was disposed of with a direction that the Writ Petition itself should be taken as representation by the Respondents and then consider and decide it. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Respondents have now passed order which is impugned in this petition. 2. The facts of the case are that; the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Maths and worked as part time Teacher. However, her appointment was initially shown on cloak hour basis. Them from 2000-2001, she started working as Full Time Teacher, but was not issued any appointment order. The petitioner used to teach the classes of XI and XII and she was not paid any salary, but was informed that approval to her appointment was refused due to backlog of reservation in the Management. The services of the Petitioner came to be continued as Full Time Teacher for academic year 2002-03 on probation, however, no salary was paid to her. She continued to work for academic years 2003-04, 2004-05 without being paid any salary. The impugned order notes down as under : "In the A.Y. 2000-01, the Dy. Director of Education, Pune., granted sanction for additional optional subject of Mathematics for the XIth standard Arts Division, there was increase in the work load during that year and the part time post was converted into a full time post. On the said post in A.Y. 2000-01, Smt.Dongarge was appointed as a full time Teacher, but the Dy. Director of Education, Pune., vide his letter O.W.No.PR/T.A/2000-01/HSE-2 dated 24-8-2000 had informed the Management that the said appointment (of Smt.Dongarge) is not approved since it is not made as per (G.R.) dated 27-4-2000. The Management has admitted the same". 3. This para makes an interesting reading because the exceptions made in this para of the order itself shows that there was need of a full time teacher as an additional optional subject of Maths was being taught in the XI class, but on the other hand the Officer concerned did not sanction appointment of the petitioner. The appointment was refused, as according to the Officer concerned, it has been made in violation of G.R. dated 27-4-2000. We have seen the order. The order merely states that the appointment could not be approved as the appointment had been made in violation of G.R. dated 27-4-2000. We have seen G.R. dated 27-4-2000, which lays down that any appointment to be made should be made as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ on a consolidated salary and after a person served for three years as Shikshan Sevak, then his services could be regularised as Assistant Teacher. So if the Deputy Director of Education found that the services of the petitioner could not be regularised because of G.R. dated 27-4-2000, he could have directed continuance of the teacher as Shikshan Sevak and could in no case decline her appointment itself. 4. Therefore, we direct that w.e.f. 24-8-2000 when the approval was denied, the petitioner be treated to have been appointed as full time Shikshan Sevak and after considering her appointment as full time Shikshan Sevak, all consequential benefits shall also be given to her and the decision be taken by the Respondents in that regard within a period of two months from today. 5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.