IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, R.I. Chagla, JJ.
Shital Kumar Patil - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4273 of 2019, 4275 of 2019
Decided On : 16-07-2021
Appointment - Minority Educational Institution - Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 - MEPS Act - [1950, 1977] - The court addressed the rejection of the proposal for appointment of a peon in a minority educational institution. It discussed the applicability of Government Resolutions dated 23rd October, 2013, 12th February, 2015, and 8th August, 2017, and the exclusion of section 5(1) of the MEPS Act for minority institutions. The court emphasized that subsequent Government Resolutions were not applicable to appointments made prior to their issuance and held in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a peon in a minority educational institution, and the proposal for approval of the appointment was rejected by the Education Officer. The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking approval for the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the proposal was based on the erroneous application of Government Resolutions and the MEPS Act, which did not apply to minority institutions. It emphasized that subsequent Government Resolutions were not applicable to the petitioner's appointment made prior to their issuance.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the proposal for appointment, the applicability of Government Resolutions and the MEPS Act to minority institutions, and the compliance with the requisite procedure for filling up the peon post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Government Resolutions and the MEPS Act did not apply to the petitioner's appointment in a minority institution and emphasized the exclusion of section 5(1) of the MEPS Act for minority institutions. It also highlighted that subsequent Government Resolutions were not applicable to appointments made prior to their issuance.
Final Decision: The court made the writ petitions absolute, directing the respondent to grant approval for the petitioner's appointment within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
JUDGMENT
R.D.Dhanuka, J. - Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.1 & 2. No reliefs are claimed against the respondent nos.3 & 4. By consent of petitioner and the respondent nos.1 & 2, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner addressed this Court in Writ Petition No.4273 of 2019 and jointly state that the issue involved in both these petitions are identical and thus the order that would be passed in Writ Petition No.4273 of 2019 would apply in Writ Petition No.4275 of 2019 also. Statement is accepted. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Education Officer, the respondent no.-2 herein rejecting the proposal submitted by the respondent no.4 for seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a peon. Some of the relevant facts in both these petitions are as under : -
FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO.4273 of 2019
3. The respondent no.3 is a minority educational institution registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. Some time in the year 2017 a vacancy arose in the respondent no.4 school for the post of Peon. The respondent no.3 issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the said post of peon. Several candidates including the petitioner applied for the said post. After conducting interview of all the candidates including petitioner, the petitioner was found to be most suitable candidate for the said post of the peon. He was selected for the said job. The School Committee accordingly passed a Resolution in respect of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of peon in the respondent no.4 school for a period from 1st July 2017 to 30th June 2020. On 30th June 2017, the respondent no.3 appointed the petitioner to the said post of peon w.e.f. 1st July 2017.
4. On 4th August, 2017 the respondent no.4 submitted a proposal to the Educational Officer (Secondary) for granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of peon in the respondent no.4 school. On 19th August, 2017, the respondent no.2 returned the said proposal to the respondent no.4 school holding that the approval could not be granted to the appointment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19th August, 2017, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4273 of 2019.
FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4275 OF 2019
5. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 1st February, 2018 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the proposal submitted by the respondent no.4 in respect of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a peon in the respondent no.4 school and seeks an order and direction against the respondent no.2 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the said post since the date of his initial appointment of 1st July, 2017.
6. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent no.3 in the year 2017 inviting applications for the post of peon in the respondent no.4 school, the petitioner applied for the said post on 30th June, 2017. The respondent no.4 issued a letter of appointment to the petitioner to the said post of peon in the said respondent no.4 school for the period from 1st July, 2017 to 30th June, 2020. The respondent no.4 submitted the proposal to the respondent no.2 on 20th March, 2017 for seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of peon in the respondent no.4 school. The respondent no.4 school passed a resolution confirming the appointment of the petitioner to the said post. The respondent no.2 passed an order on 1st February, 2018 and returned the said proposal to the respondent no.4 holding that the approval could not be granted to the appointment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 1st February, 2018, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4275 of 2019 for various reliefs.
The submissions made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4272 of 2019:-
7.
Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T.Jose & Ors.
AI
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.