Bombay High Court High Court

Mrs.Chitra Nitin Pendharkar : vs The Maharashtra Education … on 29 January, 2009

Bombay High Court
Mrs.Chitra Nitin Pendharkar : vs The Maharashtra Education … on 29 January, 2009
Bench: S.A. Bobde
                          -:   1    :-



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                        APPELLATE SIDE

                WRIT PETITION NO.6372 OF 2008




                                                                           
    Mrs.Chitra Nitin Pendharkar                         : Petitioner




                                                   
                                                      (Orig.Appellant)

         V/s.

    The Maharashtra Education Society & Ors.             : Respondents




                                                  
                             ...

    Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner.




                                         
    Mrs.A.N.Helekar for respondent nos.1 & 2.

    Mrs.S.S.Bhende, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for resp. no.3.
                         ig  ...

                                     CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.

DATE : JANUARY 29, 2009.

ORAL ORDER:

Rule, returnable forthwith.

Mrs.Helekar for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and

Mrs.Bhende, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the

respondent no.3, waive service.

Heard by consent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the School

Tribunal dated 17.7.2008 dismissing the petitioner’s

appeal. The petitioner’s appointment as a Teacher on open

category has been held to be beyond the prescribed

percentage for reserved category candidates.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:17:11 :::

-: 2 :-

3. There are three units of deaf and dumb students which

are sanctioned in the school. The petitioner was employed

in one of the units. Her services were terminated. The

petitioner challenged the termination. The School

Tribunal held that each of the aforesaid units will have

to be taken separately for applying prescribed percentage

of reservation. When it is so applied, the petitioner’s

appointment cannot be sustained because there are already

two open category teachers in the unit and, therefore, the

third teacher will have to be a reserved category

candidate which the petitioner is not. Taking this view,

the School Tribunal
ig has held that the petitioner’s

appointment is illegal and non est in the eyes of law.

4. Having heard the parties, it appears that the order of

the School Tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent

from the face of the record, in that rule 9 has not been

correctly applied. Rule 9(7), as it read at the relevant

time, is as follows:-

“(7) The Management shall reserve 34 per

cent of the total number of posts of the

teaching as well as non-teaching staff for

the members of the Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Castes converts to Buddhism,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:17:11 :::

-: 3 :-

Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes,

Nomadic Tribes and other Backward Classes

as follows, namely:





                                                                            
                  (a)    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled




                                                   
                         Castes converts to Buddhism.                 13%



                  (b)    Scheduled Tribes including those




                                                  
                         living outside the specified                   7%

                         areas.




                                           
                  (c)    Denotified Tribes and Nomadic
                            
                         Tribes.                                        4%
                           
                  (d)    Other Backward Classes.                    10%"



    The    mandate of the Rule is that 34 per cent of the total
      


    number      of posts of the teaching as well as            non-teaching
   



staff in the school should be reserved for the categories

mentioned therein. It does not warrant the breaking up

of any category of teachers into specific units and

applying the prescribed percentage of reservation to such

a unit. The mandate of the Rule is that the prescribed

percentage shall be applied to the entire teaching and

non-teaching staff in the school. Had this rule been

properly applied, it would not have been possible for the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:17:11 :::

-: 4 :-

Tribunal to hold that the petitioner’s appointment is in

contravention of the prescribed percentage because there

are already two teachers belonging to the open category

in the unit where the petitioner is working.

5. The learned Asstt. Govt.Pleader, however, argued

that the defect arose on account of the practice of the

respondent-management in maintaining a separate roster

for the three units. The learned counsel for the

management submits that this practice is followed because

of a direction from the Department of Education.

Whatever be the reason, in case the respondent-management

is

not maintaining a roster, in accordance with law, the

Department of Education may call upon it to do so. That

is no reason for permitting a breach of rule 9(7), as it

stood at the relevant time, under which the total number

of teaching and non-teaching staff has to be taken as a

whole for calculating the prescribed percentage of

reservation.

6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set

aside, since there is no other justification put forth by

the respondents for termination of the petitioner’s

service, except that her appointment was not as per the

roster and was in violation of the rule of reservation.

The respondent no.3 is directed to consider and grant the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:17:11 :::

-: 5 :-

petitioner’s approval, in accordance with law. Upon such

grant of approval, the petitioner shall be entitled to

all benefits therefrom.

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

S.A. BOBDE, J.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:17:11 :::