- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2910/2009 Bushra Noor Abdul Rauf Khan, age 28 yrs., occu.service, r/o c/o Zia-Ul-Uloom Girls High School, Buddi Lane, Aurangabad. Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Dy.Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3] The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 4] The Anjuman Ishat-E-Taleem Trust, c/o Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, through its President. 5] The Zia-Ul-Uloom Girls High School, Buddi Lane, Aurangabad. Through its Head Mistress. 6] Mahajeebin Fatema Abdul Raheman, age 41 yrs., occu.service, r/o Maulana Azad High School, Khultabad. Tq.Khultabad Dist.Aurangabad. 7] Munwar Ahmed s/o Nayeem Ahmed, age 35 yrs., occu.nil r/o c/o M.A. Masjid, Plot No.40, New S.T. Colony, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... - 2 - ..... Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent no.5. Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent no.6. Shri M.S. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent no.7 – intervenor. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 03.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.): 1] Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order / letter dated 6.3.2009 issued by respondent no.3. The petitioner also prays for payment of her regular salary / honorarium as well as arrears of salary / honorarium. 4] The petitioner, it appears, is aggrieved by the order of the Education Officer, by which the Education Officer had directed the respondent nos.4 & 5 - 3 - – management, to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that sufficient work load was not available. The petitioner, therefore, apprehending the termination of her services, has filed the present petition. 5] It appears that the petitioner came to be appointed on 23.7.2007 as a Shikshan Sevak for teaching Mathematics and Physics subjects. Thereafter, by a communication dated 26.10.2007, approval came to be granted to the services of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the respondent no.6, who was serving at Khultabad, came to be transferred and, therefore, the respondent no.6 had filed a petition in this Court namely Writ Petition No.1953/2008. During hearing of the said petition, a statement came to be made on behalf of the management that the respondent no.6 / original petitioner would be retained / accommodated at Aurangabad from the ensuing academic year i.e. Some time in June, 2009. The aforesaid order came to be passed on 16.10.2008, by which the Division Bench, therefore, disposed of the said writ petition accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent – management therein. It appears that certain additional divisions came to be sanctioned to the respondent – management school on account of strength of students as was indicated. However, upon scrutiny, it transpired that the strength of the students was much less than the one that was projected and consequently certain divisions came to be reduced. As a result of reduction in the divisions, certain staff and teachers became surplus. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on probation for a period of two years, according to the respondent – Education Officer, is not entitled to be paid from the salary grants as sufficient work load was not available. 6] In any event, we need not enter into this aspect of the case as Shri Dighe, the learned AGP, states on instructions from the Education Officer, that though the Education Officer had stated in his impugned communication that the management should terminate the services of the petitioner, the said direction to the management for terminating the services of the petitioner is - 4 - not a directive as such, but is only an advice to the management as the salary grants would not be available for payment of salary to the petitioner. Since the major part of the relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition i.e. of quashing the aforesaid direction of terminating the services of the petitioner no longer now survives, the limited grievance of the petitioner, which now survives for consideration, is the payment of salary and honorarium and the arrears thereof, if any. 7] Since the respondents have held that the petitioner is not entitled to be paid the salary from the salary grants, it is the sole responsibility of the respondent – management to pay the salary to the petitioner. Shri Gunale, learned counsel for the management, was at pains in pointing out to us that sufficient work load is available and, therefore, the payment of salary of the petitioner can be reimbursed from the salary grants. Shri Gunale, learned counsel for the respondent – management, states that the respondent – management would accordingly submit a representation to the respondent – Education Officer pointing out sufficiency of the work load available for the petitioner. We leave the respondent – management to its discretion of submitting the said representation. However, in the event such a representation is submitted, the same shall be decided by the Education Officer as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. 8] In respect of payment of salary to the petitioner, we direct the respondent – management to pay the current salary as well as arrears of salary within six months from today. 9] In the light of the fact that the Education Officer has not directed the respondent – management to terminate the services of the petitioner, it is needless to state that the interim relief granted earlier i.e. of restraining the management from terminating the services of the petitioner, stands vacated. - 5 - 10] Rule is, thus, made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c38093