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 WRIT PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2008 Shri Madhukar Dattatraya Gholap. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents. M.S.Karnik for the petitioner. A.H.Palekar, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Tushar Sonawane for respondent No.3. Anilkumar Patil for respondent No.5. CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 3rd April 2009. DATED: 3rd April 2009. DATED: 3rd April 2009. JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : (Per V.C.Daga, J.) -------- -------- -------- . Pursuant to the order dated 18th October, 2008, this petition is being finally heard and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner by this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is seeking directions against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ensure compliance of the directions contained in the communication dated 29th February, 2007 and 16th January, 2008, whereby and whereunder the respondent No.3, the School Management was directed to appoint the petitioner as Head Master with effect from 1st June, 2007 with further direction to pay difference of salary and other emoluments together with arrears thereof to which he may be entitled to. The Facts : The Facts : The Facts : --------- --------- --------- 3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner claimed to be appointed as Head Master of the school run by the respondent No.3 Society consequent upon retirement of one Shri Khambekar on 31st March, 2007 since one of the posts of Head Masters out of two was to be treated under reservation as per the Government Resolution dated 21st April, 2004. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5, being junior to the petitioner in backward class seniority list, was not entitled to be appointed as Head Master though the Education Officer had issued instructions to the School Management to promote respondent No.5 to the post of Head Master vide its communication dated 14th February, 2007. 4. The petitioner made representation dated 6th March, 2007 to the respondent No.2 - Education Officer contending that the promotion of respondent No.5 as Head Master of the subject school was bad and illegal since the petitioner being the senior Assistant Teacher belonging to the backward class was entitled to be appointed to the post of Head Master. This representation was followed by other representations - 3 - dated 21st March, 2007 and 5th June, 2007. The petitioner also made representation dated 5th May, 2007 to the respondent No.3- Society ventilating his grievances. 5. The series of representations made by the petitioner did not yield any result. He also approached respondent No.1- State of Maharashtra through the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, who, in turn, informed respondent No.2, the Education Officer that injustice has been done to the petitioner in as much as junior person in the backward category has been appointed as Head Master superseding the better claim of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 was called upon vide communication dated 17th February, 2007 to process his case. The respondent No.2, thereafter, after having considered recommendation made by respondent No.1 called upon respondent No.3- the Society vide his communication dated 28thJune, 2007 to submit proposal of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Head Master of the subject school. The respondent No.2, vide his communication dated 16th July, 2007, also directed the respondent No.3 to comply with the directions issued by the respondent No.1 and to appoint - 4 - the petitioner to the post of Head Master with effect from 1st June, 1007. 6. In spite of the aforesaid repeated directions, the respondent No.3 did not take any step, consequently, again respondent No.1, vide his order dated 25th October, 2007, issued further directions to cancel promotion given to the respondent No.5 to the post of Head Master and to take action against those who were responsible in granting wrongful promotion to the respondent No.5. 7. The petitioner also made a request to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad to comply with the order of respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 7th November, 2007 and prayed for issuance of necessary directions to respondent No.3- Society running the school. 8. The respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 16th January, 2008 again issued direction to the respondent No.3 to take steps to grant promotion to the petitioner as he had also submitted caste validity certificate in support of his claim. - 5 - 9. Apart from the above, the respondent No.1, vide its letter dated 24th January, 2008, again called upon the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad to take action with respect to the promotion of the petitioner. 10. It appears that in spite of series of directions issued to the respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner as Head Master, no action was taken by the respondent No.3- Society. Consequently, various Assistant Teachers came together and submitted memorandum dated 1st March, 2008 seeking cancellation of promotion of the respondent No.5 and to seek appointment of the petitioner as Head Master of the subject school. However, this memorandum also did not yield any result. Consequently, petitioner again made another representation on 15th March, 2008 to the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik reiterating his demand. 11. In spite of aforesaid repeated directions by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.3 failed to appoint the petitioner as Head Master with effect from 1st June, 2007. The petitioner finding non-implementation of the repeated directions issued by - 6 - respondent Nos.1 and 2 from time to time by the respondent No.3 invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to seek implementation of the directions given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and prayed for appointment to the post of Head Master with effect from 1st June, 2007. 12. On being noticed, the Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nasik appeared and filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 contending therein that it is for the respondent No.3- Society to take action for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Master pursuant to the directions issued from time to time. It is also brought on record that series of directions were issued to the respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner as Head Master. However, reading of the counter affidavit gives an indication that beyond giving directions, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have no further obligation to seek upon implementation of their orders. 13. The respondent No.3- Society has also filed counter affidavit contending therein that the petitioner was never interested in promotion and that he was never inclined to work as Head Master since he - 7 - was to retire in the month of May, 2008. He has filed this petition just to harass the Management and claim monetary benefits. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has already retired from the service in the month of May, 2008 i.e. during the pendency of the petition, the petition be disposed of as infructuous. Consideration : Consideration : Consideration : ------------- ------------- ------------- 14. Having heard rival parties, it is, no doubt, true that when the petition was filed the petitioner was in the employment of the subject school. During the pendency of this petition he retired in the month of May, 2008. Consequently, none of the prayers made can be granted as on date. However, during the course of hearing it has come to the notice of this court that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 failed to seek implementation and execution of their directions dated 25th October, 2007 issued to respondent No.3, copy of which was also forwarded to the Education Officer and the respondent No.4- the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik. 15. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 were expected to know that once the order was passed, it was their duty to see that their order is implemented in its true letter - 8 - and spirit. All of them were expected to realise that paper orders do not serve any purpose. The citizens approach the authorities under the State Government to seek redressal of their grievances. Their grievances, if redressed after hearing them by a reasoned order, then the authority passing the order should not entertain a belief that with the passing of the order their obligation ends. It is needless to emphasis that it is also obligatory on the part of the authority passing the order to see that the order passed by it is implemented in its true letter and spirit. At the same time, it is also obligatory on the part of the Education Department to see that the order passed by the competent authority is executed well within time. The person against whom order is passed is also expected to know that he is bound by the adverse order suffered by him so long the order is not set aside by the competent authority. 16. In the case in hand, facts, unequivocally, go to show that the order dated 25th October, 2007 was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, copy of which was forwarded to the Education Officer as well as Deputy Director of Education, was remained to be complied with. Both authorities have - 9 - failed to get the order the order dated 25th October, 2007 duly implemented. Pending implementation of their order, the petitioner has retired. None of the authorities took any coercive step to seek implementation of their orders almost for a period more than a year. Needless to mention that if the authorities found that the school management was not implementing their orders, the authorities were not powerless to take coercive measures, like; stopping payment of grant, salary of the staff etc. until their orders are implemented. 17. At the same time, respondent No.3- Society was also expected to to know that so long as the order suffered by them is holding the field, it was their obligation to implement the same. If they were aggrieved by any subject direction, it was open for them to challenge the same in appropriate forum. The school authority cannot sit on the order or directions issued by the competent authority and refuse compliance thereof. 18. In the present case, had the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 taken appropriate steps to seek implementation of their order and/or direction, the petitioner would - 10 - have got advantage of their order and the present petition could have been avoided. The petitioner has, unnecessarily, been put in financial burden by incurring legal expenses just to seek implementation of the order passed in his favour. 19. At this juncture, it is needless to emphasis that this Court is flooded with thousands of petitions seeking implementation of the orders passed from time to time by different authorities or the functionaries of the State. It has been noticed by this Court that though orders are passed by various authorities under the various legislations, no steps are taken by the authorities passing the orders to seek implementation thereof. The scenario is worst so far as Education Department is concerned. If the authority takes steps to seek implementation of its order well within time, major part of the litigations in this Court can definitely be cut down. 20. In the aforesaid premises, though in this petition we cannot grant positive relief in favour of the petitioner, however, we direct the Principal Secretaries of the Law and Judiciary Department as well as that of School Education Department, Government of - 11 - Maharashtra to issue directions to all the subordinate authorities impressing upon them that their duty does not end with the passing of the order. It is also their obligation to seek implementation of their order. If they find that the school authorities are flouting their orders, in absence of any challenge thereof, it is always open for them to take coercive steps to seek implementation of their orders, if necessary, by stopping staff salary, grant in aid and other benefits so as to bring the school management to terms. 21. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Education Officer to claim financial benefit, if he is otherwise entitled to in law. 22. The petition is disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. 23. The compliance of this order may be reported to this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned A.G.P. undertakes to communicate this order to the concerned authority. The Registrar General is directed to forward copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra for information. - 12 - (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)