Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laxman Tuljiram More, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the educational institution (respondent No.4, Marathwada Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) to comply with the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 15.12.2011, which was passed pursuant to this Court's order dated 5.7.2011 in Writ Petition No.6212 of 2008. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher by the Head Master (respondent No.5) but was terminated on 11.6.2006. He approached the School Tribunal, which granted reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. The management challenged this in Writ Petition No.5160 of 2009, and the High Court initially stayed the entire judgment on 13.8.2009, but later modified the order on 6.10.2009 to stay only the backwages. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated and has been working and drawing salary. The management argued that the appointment was illegal as no advertisement was published and the Head Master acted without authority. The Head Master contended that proper procedure was followed. The court, after hearing both sides, directed respondent No.4 to comply with the Deputy Director's order and pay salary regularly, noting that the issue of validity of appointment is pending in the earlier writ petition. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement - Compliance of Administrative Order - Petitioner sought direction to educational institution to comply with Deputy Director of Education's order dated 15.12.2011 passed under court's orders in earlier writ petition - Court directed respondent No.4 management to comply with the order and pay salary regularly - Held that the management must obey the order of the Deputy Director (Paras 1-10).
B) Service Law - Appointment - Validity - Management contended appointment by Head Master was illegal without advertisement - However, court noted that reinstatement was already ordered by School Tribunal and modified by High Court, and petitioner was working - Held that the issue of validity of appointment is sub judice in pending writ petition (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the educational institution should comply with the Deputy Director of Education's order dated 15.12.2011 for reinstatement of the petitioner, and whether the petitioner's appointment was valid.
Final Decision
The court directed respondent No.4 to comply with the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 15.12.2011 and pay salary regularly. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reinstatement with continuity
- backwages
- interim stay
- compliance of administrative orders
- writ jurisdiction for enforcement
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 6
Writ Petition No. 5949 of 2012
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Sunil K. Kotwal
Shri Adhate M.S. h/f Shri Jadhav N.L., Smt. Deshpande Manjusha, Shri Patil S.A. h/f Shri Salunke V.D., Shri Nagarsoge S.A.
The State of Maharashtra, The Dy. Director of Education, The Education Officer (S), The Marathwada Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, The Head Master
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to educational institution to comply with Deputy Director of Education's order for reinstatement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondent No.4 to comply with the order of Deputy Director of Education dated 15.12.2011.
Filing Reason
The educational institution failed to comply with the Deputy Director's order for reinstatement of the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
School Tribunal granted reinstatement with continuity and full backwages on 20.10.2008 in Appeal No.46 of 2006. High Court in Writ Petition No.5160 of 2009 stayed the judgment on 13.8.2009, later modified on 6.10.2009 to stay only backwages. Deputy Director passed order on 15.12.2011 under orders of this Court dated 5.7.2011 in Writ Petition No.6212 of 2008.
Issues
Whether the educational institution should comply with the Deputy Director of Education's order dated 15.12.2011?
Whether the petitioner's appointment was valid?
Submissions/Arguments
Management argued that appointment by Head Master was illegal without advertisement and due procedure.
Head Master contended that advertisement was published and procedure was complied with.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the management must obey the order of the Deputy Director of Education, which was passed under the orders of this Court. The issue of validity of appointment is sub judice in the pending writ petition and does not affect the compliance of the Deputy Director's order.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is before us praying for a direction that the Educational institution should comply with the order of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 15.12.2011, which was passed under the orders of this Court dated 5.7.2011 in Writ Petition No.6212 of 2008.
We, therefore, direct respondent No.4 to comply with the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 15.12.2011 and pay the salary regularly.
Procedural History
Petitioner was terminated on 11.6.2006. He filed Appeal No.46 of 2006 before School Tribunal, which granted reinstatement with continuity and full backwages on 20.10.2008. Management filed Writ Petition No.5160 of 2009, which was stayed on 13.8.2009, later modified on 6.10.2009 to stay only backwages. Petitioner was reinstated and working. Deputy Director passed order on 15.12.2011 under orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.6212 of 2008. Petitioner filed this writ petition for compliance of that order.
