HEMLATA MAHANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same and hence all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) There was one more petition being Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2000 filed by the Management against the Education Department wherein they had prayed to quash the order of 30th September, 2000 and for direction to grant approval to the seven teachers mentioned in the proforma at Exhibit G to that writ petition. The petition was filed on 16th October, 2000. It appears that an interim order dated 16th November, 2000 was passed whereby the Education Officer was asked to verify as to who were working prior to 30th September, 2000. The names of six teachers were set out. Based on that an inspection was done and a report was submitted. The report shows that the muster roll kept by one group showed these names and besides that there was also a muster roll of seven other teachers. Two of the present petitioners were appointed on 20th September, 1999 and one on 18th January, 1999. Three other teachers are shown as appointed on 1st August, 2000. The seven other teachers were appointed on 9th September, 2000. An interim order was passed that Kum. Asmita Raut, Kum. Sunita Singh, Kum. Hemlata Singh and Shri Hridaya Narayan Yadav were to be given ad-hoc approval. By order of 7th December, 2000 the Education Officer gave ad-hoc approval to the teachers. A Special Leave Petition appears to have been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court by its order dated 25th October, 2007 was pleased to set aside the order of this Court on the ground that such an order could not have been passed at the interim stage but could have been passed only at the final stage and remanded the matter back to the High Court.

(3.) The said petition came up for hearing on 25th April, 2008. The Court noted that the previous management of the school was no longer in existence and properly constituted Managing Committee has taken charge since the year 2003. The teachers have been appointed on ad-hoc basis by the Ad-hoc Committee in the year 2000 are still continuing in service and the State Government rejected the said approval. The Ad-hoc Committee preferred a petition against the same which has been allowed by the High Court by an order to run day-to-day affairs of the institution. Since the new Managing Committee was in place, it would not be necessary to decide as to whether the Ad-hoc Committee could have made appointments in view of the order of this Court allowing Ad-hoc committee to run day-to-day affairs. The petition was disposed of by allowing the Managing Committee to make a fresh selection and to forward the select list to the Government and the Government may grant its approval in accordance with law to the teachers who are so selected. Since the teachers, who were appointed by Ad-hoc Committee were working from the year 2000, their appointments were also to be considered. The direction was given as the teachers were not at fault, but they had been appointed by the Ad-hoc Committee and they had rendered services for eight years. While disposing of the said writ petition, it appears that the learned Court's attention was not invited to the pendency of these three writ petitions, which are the subject matter of the present writ petitions.