Case Note & Summary
The matter comprised eight writ petitions filed before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, with Writ Petition No. 7700 of 2022 treated as the main petition. The petitioners were teachers appointed in the year 2000 at New English High School and Junior College, Wardha, which is managed by Wardha Education Society. The appointments were made on non-grants-in-aid basis on posts reserved for the SBC category after following due procedure of law. On 13/06/2000, the Deputy Director of Education granted permission to the school to fill eight vacant posts, and an advertisement was published on 03/07/2000. The petitioners appeared in interviews and were appointed on various dates in September 2000 as Assistant Teachers or Shikshan Sevaks, with subjects including Biology, Physics, Chemistry, History, Marathi, Physical Education, and Economics. One petitioner, Sunita Rajendra Lule, had retired by the time of the litigation. The appointments of the petitioners were approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 03/09/2003 after completion of a two-year probation period. Subsequently, on 26/02/2010, the Deputy Director granted approval to the appointments from the year 2000. Respondent No. 7, Dnyanendra Vishwanath Muneshwar, was appointed on probation as an Assistant Teacher on 22/06/2004, making him junior to the petitioners. The excerpt does not contain the specific reliefs sought, the arguments advanced by the parties, the legal issues framed by the court, the analysis, or the final decision. The court issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith, heard the parties finally by consent, and closed the matter for judgment on August 14, 2025, pronouncing judgment on September 09, 2025.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Approval of Appointments - Not mentioned - The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers/Shikshan Sevaks in 2000 on non-grants-in-aid posts reserved for SBC category after following due procedure. Their appointments were approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 03/09/2003 and 26/02/2010, while respondent no.7 was appointed on 22/06/2004 and was junior to the petitioners. The court considered the factual matrix of appointments, approvals, and seniority, but the final holding is not available in the provided excerpt (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO. 77002022
