IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ujjal Bhuyan, M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.
Navnath - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6582 of 2016
Decided On : 23-03-2021
Appointment - Dispute in Management - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [Geography and Political Science] - [Article 226] - [Summary: The court considered the dispute in management of the institution and its impact on the approval of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The court held that the dispute in management could not be a ground to decline approval or keep such approval in abeyance. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to consider grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher on a full-time basis within a specified period.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, sought quashing of an order rejecting the proposal for granting approval to his services due to a dispute in the management of the institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute in management could not be a ground to decline approval or keep such approval in abeyance.
Issues: The main issue was the impact of the dispute in the management of the institution on the approval of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that routine affairs of the institution, including appointments and approvals, are to be considered independently of disputes in management.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to consider grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher on a full-time basis within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; and Mr. Solanke, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 20.01.2016 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur i.e. respondent No.3 rejecting the proposal for granting approval to the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.5/School.
4. Case of the petitioner is that he has the educational qualification of M.A., B.Ed (Geography and Political Science) and is therefore eligible and qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Secondary and Higher Secondary School.
5. Be it stated that respondent No.5/School is managed by respondent No.4.
6. An advertisement was issued by respondent Nos.4 & 5 which was published in the news paper 'Daily Lokmat' on 29.08.2008 for filing-up vacancies in the posts of Assistant Teacher in English, Political Science, Geography, Shikshanshastra and History on clock hour basis. While one post was reserved for OBC category, two posts were under the open category.
7. Petitioner applied pursuant to the above advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher in Geography under the OBC category. In this connection the candidates who had applied were interviewed on 31.08.2008. Thereafter petitioner came to be selected under the OBC category for the post of Geography. Following the selection of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and the School Management Committee issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner on 05.09.2008 on clock hour basis. Petitioner joined respondent No.5/School on 09.09.2008.
8. As the service of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory, petitioner was appointed to the said post of Assistant Teacher on full time basis for a period of two years with effect from 17.06.2012. In this connection School Management Committee adopted resolution dated 07.06.2012 whereafter appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 07.06.2012. On the basis of such appointment, petitioner joined respondent No.5/School on 18.06.2012.
9. School Management Committee adopted a resolution on 20.07.2014 appointing the petitioner to the said post of Assistant Teacher on permanent basis as the service of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory. Consequently, permanent appointment order of the petitioner was issued on 23.07.2014.
10. Upon appointment of the petitioner to the full time post of Assistant Teacher, respondent No.5 had submitted proposal to respondent No.3 seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. The proposal was submitted on 31.07.2013 which was followed by reminder.
11. It is stated that there is a dispute between two groups regarding management of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, respondent No.3 rejected the proposal submitted by respondent No.5 vide the order dated 20.01.2016 by observing that approval cannot be granted till the decision in the dispute for management of respondent Nos.4 and 5 was resolved. This was intimated to the petitioner by respondent No.5 vide letter dated 20.04.2016.
12. Assailing such rejection of the proposal sent for grant of approval, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
13. Respondent No.3 has filed affidavit. It was filed on 13.10.2016. Stand taken in the affidavit is that respondent No.5 had submitted proposal of the petitioner to respondent No.3 on 31.07.2013 seeking approval. Upon scrutiny of the proposal, respondent No.3 had rejected the same for the following reasons:-
(i) Full time post was not approved from the date of appointment i.e. from the year 2008.
(ii) Appointment order was not attached.
(iii) Joining report was not attached.
(iv) Sch
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.