The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to the statutory provisions under the MEPS Act and the Government Resolution in making appointments in private schools, and the consequences of non-compliance with such provisions.

S.S. Shinde, J. :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 11.09.2014 passed by respondent no.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Latur, confirming the approval granted to the appointments of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Shikshan Sevak in respondent no.7 school on 10.08.2012. It is further prayed that the appointment orders dated 29.02.2012 of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Shikshan Sevak in respondent no.7 school and the approval dated 10.08.2012 be quashed and set aside.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Managing Committee belonging to the group of which the petitioner is member, was elected in the year 2009, and since then they are looking after the affairs of the trust. The new Committee is again elected in June, 2012, for further period of three years. Accordingly, all respondent authorities were informed that the group of petitioner is elected on 04.08.2009 and change report was also filed. Thereafter, even from the year 2012, the group of petitioner is elected and even rival group did not file any change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is submitted that as the posts were vacant in the school run by the petitioner, the petitioner made an application on 31.08.2012 to respondent no.3 – Deputy Director of Education, requesting to grant permission to fill in the said vacant posts. It was stated in the application addressed to the Education Officer that the rival group, who has no lawful authority, is claiming that they are in power and trying to appoint their relatives on the vacant posts. It is submitted that in the month of December, 2012, some members of the present Managing Committee learnt that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are appointed as Shikshan Sevak by the Headmaster. The petitioner filed application under Right to Information Act (in short ‘RTI Act’) to the Headmaster, seeking information of such appointments. Accordingly, the information was received, disclosing that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are appointed as Shikshan Sevak.

4. It is further submitted that before making such appointments of respondent nos.5 and 6 as Shikshan Sevak, no procedure as contemplated under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 [in short ‘MEPS Act’] r/w. Rule 9 has been followed by the Headmaster. No advertisement was issued before making appointments of respondent nos.5 and 6 by the Head Master. Though the present Managing Committee is represented by the petitioner in power, the Headmaster acted arbitrarily in collusion with the so called person claiming to be in power, whose change reports are rejected and no appeal has been filed by them, and therefore, the petitioner terminated the services of respondent nos.5 and 6, by an order dated 29.04.2013. The said order was sent by RPAD. Accordingly, the Education Officer was informed on 04.05.2013 about termination of services of respondent nos.5 and 6. In spite of terminating the services of respondent nos.5 and 6 by the Managing Committee, the Headmaster continued them in service in collusion with the earlier President and the Secretary of the trust as respondent nos.5 and 6 are their relatives. The then Headmaster was acting highhandedly, informed that as the approval has been granted by respondent no.3 Deputy Director of Education in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6, therefore, they cannot be removed from the service. Therefore, the petitioner filed application under RTI Act to the office of the Education Officer/Deputy Director, seeking information and the copy of approval order. Accordingly, the information was given to the petitioner on 10.07.2013 by the respondent authority, providing the copy of approval dated 10.08.2012 granted in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner also filed an application under RTI Act to res