Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chandrakant Baburao Gondhali, was appointed as a Special Teacher on 1 October 1987 for visually handicapped students. At the time of appointment, he was a graduate. The State of Maharashtra introduced a diploma course for teaching the visually handicapped only in the year 1990-91. The petitioner completed the course between 1 July 1992 and 31 March 1993. The Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Handicapped Division), Pune, by order dated 4 May 1998, refused the petitioner's promotion to the post of trained graduate special teacher on the ground that he had not completed the training within five years of appointment and that respondent No.5, Dattatray Babruvahan Tambe, was senior as a trained graduate teacher. The petitioner challenged this order. The court considered the facts that the training course was not available at the time of the petitioner's appointment and was introduced later. The District Social Welfare Officer had earlier held the petitioner as senior most special teacher. The court found that the petitioner could not be faulted for the delay in completing training as the course was not available earlier. The court held that the time limit for completing training should be relaxed, and the petitioner's seniority should be counted from his initial appointment. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion as trained graduate special teacher with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Training Completion Period - Relaxation - The petitioner completed training after the prescribed five-year period due to late introduction of the course by the State - The court held that the time limit for completing training should be relaxed in such circumstances, and the petitioner's seniority should be reckoned from initial appointment - Held that the petitioner is entitled to promotion as trained graduate special teacher with consequential benefits (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who completed the training course after the prescribed five-year period, is entitled to promotion as trained graduate special teacher, and whether the respondent No.5 was correctly held senior.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4 May 1998 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion as trained graduate special teacher with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Promotion eligibility
- seniority
- training completion period
- relaxation of time limit
- interpretation of government orders
