JALINDHAR BHOUSO RANAWAREversusDISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, SATARA AND ORS.

                                                                   902-LPA-152-2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2009
                                   IN
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4140 OF 2007


Jalindhar Bhouso Ranaware                                                     ...Appellant
      Versus
District Social Welfare Officer,
Satara And Ors                                                             ...Respondents

                                     ——————
None for appellant.
Mr. Onkar Ghatge, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for respondents-State.
                                     ——————

                                        Coram :       Madhav J. Jamdar &
                                                      Pravin S. Patil, JJ.

                                        Date      :   March 18, 2026.

P. C. :

1.        A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 27 th November 2019

(Coram: Pradeep Nandrajog, CJ & Bharati Dangre, J), passed the

following order:

             1. None appears for the Appellant.
             2. Writ Petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the
             learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22nd
             November, 2007. In the Writ Petition, the Appellant had
             challenged the Judgment dated 31st January, 2007 passed by
             the School Tribunal. The Appeal filed by the Appellant before
             the School Tribunal was obviously dismissed.
             3. The Appellant alleged that his service was illegally terminated



adn                                      1 of 3
                                                               902-LPA-152-2009

         on 26th November, 2001.
         4. The decision of the School Tribunal shows that with reference
         to the record it emerged that the Appellant had been appointed
         as a Teacher on temporary basis against a post reserved for
         Scheduled Caste candidate on account of non-availability of
         qualified candidates in the said category. Record evinced that the
         Appellant was appointed from 1st December, 1997 to 30th April,
         1998. Thereafter, from 12th June, 1998 to 30th April, 1999 and
         finally from 17th June, 1999 to 30th April, 2000. Being
         employment in a school, it was apparent that during Summer
         Vacation the employment was discontinued.
         5. Record also showed that the District Social Welfare Officer
         granted approval for the three appointments. The School
         Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge noted that the
         appointment could not be on permanent basis for the reason
         that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate.
         Appellant’s contention that his appointment was against an
         unreserved post vacated by one Shri Kishor Jadhav was negated
         on account of the fact that having educational qualification B.Sc.
         B.Ed. the
         appointment of the Appellant could not be as a non Science
         Teacher when Shri Kishor Jadhav left employment who had the
         qualification B.A. B.Ed.
         6. To put it simply, the post which became vacant on account of
         Shri Kishor Jadhav leaving the school was a post in the non
         Science stream. The Appellant was appointed in the Science
         stream against a post reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
         7. Be that as it may, since none appears for the Appellant we
         dismiss the Appeal in default, but have noted aforesaid facts
         should the Appellant move an application for restoration of the
         Appeal. At that stage whichever Bench is seized of the
         application would have the benefit of the facts and the rival
         versions, with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to
         affirm the view taken by the Tribunal.

2.    Thus, although the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed for default,

the Division Bench has specifically noted that the Appellant was

appointed in the science stream against a post reserved for a Scheduled

Caste candidate, whereas the vacancy caused by Shri Kishor Jadhav

pertained to the non-science stream.

3.    Another Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 16th February



adn                                  2 of 3
                                                            902-LPA-152-2009

2026 passed in Interim Application No. 11296 of 2025 in Letters Patent

Appeal No. 152 of 2009, restored the Letters Patent Appeal.

4.     Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the Appellant was

terminated from service on 26th November 2001. The School Tribunal,

Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, dismissed the Appeal on 31 st January 2007.

The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant was thereafter dismissed on 22 nd

November 2007. There is nothing on record to indicate that any interim

relief was granted or that the Appellant continued in service after 2001,

or at least after dismissal of the Writ Petition in 2007.

5.     As noted above, the Appellant was appointed in the science stream

against a post reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, whereas the

vacancy caused by Shri Kishor Jadhav was in the non-science stream.

Therefore, the appointment of the Appellant cannot be said to be legal

and proper.

6.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case is made

out for interference with the impugned order.

7.     Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.



[Pravin S. Patil, J.]                                   [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




adn                                3 of 3