AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8613 OF 2006 Smt. Nayana Pramod Avhad, residing at Plot No.20, Pancharatna Apartment, Snehanagar, Dindoshi Road, Nashik – 4. ) ) ) ) ... Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ) 2 The Zilla Parishad, Through the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. ) ) ) 3 The Education Officer, Secondary Medium, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. ) ) 4 Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik, Education Society, Nashik, through the Secretary, having its office at Dongare, Vidyarthi Vastigriha, Late Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Marg, Canada Corner, Nashik – 422 002. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ... Respondents Mr. M.S. Karnik for the petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State. Mr. S.K. Shinde for respondent 4. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESERVED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT AJN 2 PRONOUNCED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. 1. The petitioner is B.A., B.Ed. She has joined respondent 4 Institution as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 7/7/1994. She was appointed by an order dated 3/7/1994. Her appointment was for one year. It came to be extended by order dated 24/6/1995 and by subsequent order dated 24/1/1996. 2. It is the petitioner's case that she was eligible to be appointed in the B.Ed scale, however she was informed that as the posts were not available, she should accept the said appointment in D.Ed scale with an assurance that as and when the posts in the B.Ed scale become available, she would be forthwith appointed in the B.Ed scale. The petitioner accepted the appointment on the basis of this assurance. According to the petitioner, she has performed her duties honestly and sincerely, however till today, she continues to be in D.Ed scale. Though several teachers have been appointed in the B.Ed scale, the petitioner has been deprived of the AJN 3 said scale. 3. According to the petitioner, she has made various representations and requested the respondents to grant B.Ed scale to her. However, various juniors were appointed in the B.Ed scale. But the petitioner has been deprived of her legitimate right. The petitioner's case is that she is being victimized and is, in fact, being transferred. According to the petitioner, she has challenged the transfer. 4. The petitioner has made various representations to the respondents. Ultimately by a communication dated 4/9/2006, the Education Officer informed her that there is no substance in her grievance. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court. By a communication dated 14/9/2006, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner had signed a bond at the time of appointment that she would not claim B.Ed scale and, therefore, she is not entitled to B.Ed scale. The petitioner, therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner has prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to give the petitioner B.Ed scale with effect from 20/12/1995. It is further prayed that the respondents be AJN 4 directed to pay to the petitioner the difference of wages of the B.Ed scale and D.Ed scale from 20/12/1995 till the grant of the B.Ed scale along with interest. 5. Writ Petition No.7256 of 2006 filed by another teacher against the same Institution has been disposed of by us by a reasoned order today after hearing Mr. Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent 4 and Ms. Bhende, learned A.G.P. for the State. Same counsel are appearing for the parties in this petition. Mr. Karnik submitted that same issues are involved in this petition and his arguments in Writ Petition No.7256 of 2006 cover this case also. He submitted that our judgment in that case will dispose of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the management and learned A.G.P. have also confirmed this. 6. We find that the present petition also suffers from gross laches. Since similar issues are involved in this petition, in view of the statements made by learned counsel, in our opinion, the present petition will have to be disposed of in terms of our judgment in Writ Petition No.7256 of 2006. AJN 5 7. However, since the petitioner is B.A., B.Ed., in future, if any vacancy arises in B.Ed scale and, if the petitioner is found suitable, having regard to the waiting list, she should be appointed in that post in accordance with law. In future, her undertaking should not come in her way of getting appointed in B.Ed scale. 8. In the circumstances, with the above observations, the petition is disposed of in terms of judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.7256 of 2006. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]