1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2096 OF 2003 SMT. KALPANA BHAURAO VEKHANDE & ORS. .. APPLICANTS PETITIONERS Vs. THE EDUCATION OFFICER & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel with I.S. Thakur for applicants/petitioners Mr. S. P. Thorat for R-1 & 2 Mr. Nitin Deshpande, AGP for R-3 & 4. CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R. S. DALVI,JJ. DATE: 19/3/2008 P.C. . The applicants are the candidates who have successfully completed their D. Ed., and are seeking appointments in the primary school. According to them in the year 1999-2000 for the post of primary teachers, applications used to be invited from all the candidates who have passed their D. Ed. exams. Thereafter a written 2 examination used to be conducted of those found eligible. Those who qualified used to be called for interview and those who qualified for written and oral examination used to be appointed as primary teachers. 2. On 10/3/2000 the Government of Maharashtra issued resolution, changing the prescribed procedure and bringing into effect the scheme of Shikshan Sevaks on contract basis on a fixed honorarium in the primary schools. Clause 13 of Schedule A to the said Resolution prescribed the mode of selection by calling the information of all eligible candidates from various Government agencies such as Employment Exchange etc. and preparing the list of such candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in D. Ed. examination and selecting them on merits after formally calling them for interviews etc. 3. In the instant petition the applicants have inter alia challenged the said Government Resolution. The applicants’ challenge to the same is that in 1999-2000 the procedure for selecting the primary teachers was conducting a common written examination of 200 marks and interview test 3 of 25 marks and not on the basis of D. Ed. marks. Hence the applicants were concentrating on common written test and not on D. Ed. written examination. Their grievance is that arbitrarily this procedure was changed and under the new procedure the list of candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in D. Ed. exams. According to the applicants this procedure is causing grave prejudice to them. The writ petition is pending for final hearing. 4. The present civil application is taken out relying on the fact that in Sindhudurg vide communication dated 29/5/07 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg the Government of Maharashtra directed him to fill up posts lying vacant till 10/3/2000 by calling the candidates registered with the Employment Exchange upto 10/3/2000 for interview forthwith as per merit. 5. It is urged that on parity the same course should be followed, so far as the present applicants are concerned. Reliance is placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court more particularly the judgment of the Supreme Court in 4 Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852 It is contended that in that case the Supreme Court while considering somewhat similar fact situation has held that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is suggested that ratio of this judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. It is, therefore, inter alia prayed that the Government of Maharashtra may be directed to issue directions similar to the directions issued on 29/5/07, to respondent 2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane to fill up the posts of Teachers/Shikshan Sevaks which have fallen vacant till 10/3/2000 by calling the candidates who were registered with Employment Exchange upto 10/3/2000, for interview and on their selection, they be appointed by relaxing the age limit criteria. 6. We have heard at some length Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Mr. Anturkar submitted that this case is clearly covered by the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Y. V. Rangaiah’s case (supra). He further submitted that on parity the State of Maharashtra must follow the procedure which they have followed 5 in the case of candidates from Sindhudurg District. 7. As against that Mr. Deshpande, learned AGP drew our attention to the affidavit filed by Subhash Hanmant Umaranikar, Section Officer, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. He pointed out that so far as appointments in Sindhudurg District are concerned, a writ petition is filed challenging the same being Writ Petition No. 4483 of 2007 in this court and it has been admitted by this court. Therefore, that issue is subjudice. The learned AGP also submitted that the Division Bench of Aurangabad Bench of this court has in Writ Petition No. 817 of 2001 delivered a judgment on 11/10/02 upholding the validity of clause 13 of G.R. dated 10/3/2000. He submitted that in the circumstances no relief can be granted to the applicants. 8. We have carefully perused the judgment of Division Bench of this court in Ramdas’s case (supra). It is a fact that Aurangabad Bench of this court has upheld the validity of clause 13 of G.R. dated 10/3/2000 which is challenged in this writ petition. The procedure contemplated under clause 13 has been upheld by this court. We have 6 also noticed that by order dated 17/7/03 the Division Bench of this court had directed the Zilla Parishad to appoint the applicants. By a speaking order dated 16th February, 2004 this Court vacated that order. We notice from the contents of the order that similar contentions were raised before this court. 9. It is also pertinent to note that a Special Leave Petition filed against that order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Passing any order by us today in this civil application would result in modifying the order dated 16/2/04 which we cannot do. Besides as pointed out to us the issue regarding appointments made in Sindhudurg District is subjudice in this court. It is, therefore, not possible for us to grant prayers made by the applicants in the present civil application. At this stage, we deem it fit to record the statement of Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that during the interregnum several appointments have been made. He has handed over the chart which states that in 2003-04 628, 2004-05 928 and 2006-07 745 posts have been filled. 10. We are informed by learned counsel for the 7 applicants/petitioners that the Supreme Court has requested this court to dispose of the present writ petition within three months from the date of passing of the order i.e. 18/4/05 in S.L.P. Nos. 6285-6286 of 2004. There can be no doubt that in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court this matter needs to be expeditiously disposed of. In Writ Petition No. 4483 of 2007 where appointments made in Sindhudurg are under challenge will also have to be tagged to this petition. We grant liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in that behalf. 11. We make it clear that on the merits of the case, we have not expressed any opinion. Nothing said by us in this order should be treated as our expression on the merits of the case. 12. Civil application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE