- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.277/2010 Lalita Dagdu Thosare, age 30 yrs., occu.at present Nil, r/o Plot No.36, Nivrutti Nagar, Vanjola Road, Near Private ITI, Bhusawal Dist.Jalgaon. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Divisional Commissioner / Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3] The District Collector, Jalgaon. Dist.Jalgaon. 4] The Chief Officer, Yawal. Nagar Parishad, Yawal. Dist.Jalgaon. 5] The Head Master, Sane Guruji Madhyamik Va Uchha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Yawal Tq.Yawal Dist.Jalgaon. 6] The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. ...Respondents... ..... - 2 - Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 6. Shri L.V. Sangeet, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.12.2009 and the order dated 1.8.2010 passed by the respondent no.4 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner. 3] The petitioner came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak by the respondent no.4 in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 9.2.2006. However, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the School Coordination Committee of the respondent no.4 – Municipal Council. The respondent no.3 – Collector, Jalgaon, noticing that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by the District Level Selection Committee and by the School Coordination Committee, - 3 - held that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and, therefore, set aside the resolution of the standing committee appointing the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the President of the Municipal Council went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, noticing that vide the Government resolution dated 27.3.2003, the Municipal Council was authorised to make appointment of Shikshan Sevak, allowed the appeal of the President of the Municipal Council and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh inquiry. Upon fresh inquiry, the Collector maintained the order. In the mean time, the petitioner’s services came to be terminated. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 4] It appears that during pendency of the present petition, the Collector has passed the order on 26.8.2010 holding therein that the respondent no.4 – Municipal Council was authorised to make appointment of Shikshan Sevak in accordance with the Government resolution dated 27.3.2003 and, therefore, closed the file. Copy of the said order is taken on record and marked as Exhibit X for the purpose of identification. 5] It appears to be a clear position in view of the Government resolution dated 27.3.2003 that the Municipal Council was authorised to make appointment of Shikshak Sevak. In that view of the matter, earlier orders passed by the Collector and the subsequent termination of the petitioner are not sustainable in law. - 4 - 6] Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (C), (D) & (D-1). The respondent no.4 is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in service, which continuity shall be taken into consideration for all the benefits including fixation of pay, payment of salary and retiral benefits. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for back wages for the period during which he has not actually served. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c2491019