SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. Patel, Neela Gokhale, JJ.
Harshada Pankaj Naik - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10765 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr NV Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate, with Vinayak Kumbhar, i/b AV Bandiwadekar.
For the Respondent: Mrs PJ Gavhane, AGP.

The Management's responsibility in the recruitment procedure and the Education Department's authority to reject proposals based on contravention of legal provisions.

Headnote:

Appointment - Education Department - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1981, Rule 9 - The court discussed the applicability of the Pavitra Portal, the ban on recruitment, and the selection procedure under the MEPS Act and Rules. The court held that the appointment was treated as regular and permanent despite being on a temporary basis, and directed the Management to submit a proposal for approval of the Petitioner's services to the Education Department. The Education Department rejected the proposal citing contravention of various provisions, leading the court to hold the Management responsible for the chaos in the recruitment procedure and to direct the Management to reinstate and continue the services of the Petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, an employee of a Junior College, sought directions for the approval of her services and grant-in-aid for salary. The Management terminated her services during the pendency of the Writ Petition, leading to protective orders from the Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the Management responsible for the chaos in the recruitment procedure and held that the Education Department was not to be blamed for the plight of the Petitioner. The court directed the Management to reinstate and continue the services of the Petitioner and bear the entire expenditure of her salary.

Issues: The issues revolved around the approval of the Petitioner's services, grant-in-aid for salary, and the responsibility for the chaos in the recruitment procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held the Management responsible for the chaos in the recruitment procedure and directed the Management to reinstate and continue the services of the Petitioner.

Final Decision: The court directed the Management to reinstate the Petitioner on her post and continue to pay salary to her as per the applicable scale.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale J.

1. Rule. The 2nd Respondent has filed its Affidavit in Reply. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner is an employee of the 4th Respondent Junior College run by the 3rd Respondent Educational Trust. The 2nd Respondent is the Deputy Director of Education of the 1st Respondent, State of Maharashtra.

3. The case has a chequered history and has suffered previous rounds of litigation in this very Court. The Petitioner, responding to an advertisement dated 19th June 2015 published in newspaper, “Daily Loksatta”, applied for the post of Commerce teacher in the same college. Following a selection procedure, the Petitioner was issued an appointment letter as full time Commerce Teacher on a temporary basis from 1st July 2015 to 7th November 2015, on the payment of a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-.

4. The Petitioner’s contract was renewed annually with breaks of few days in between successive appointments. This continued till 30th April 2018. Tenure appointment letters have been placed on record. The Petitioner discharged her work regularly which included in the Junior College Staff List each year while discharging her work regularly which included Time-table assigning duties in the classes of Std. 11 and 12 of the Junior College, participating in prize distribution ceremonies, conducting cultural and extracurricular activities, working on sports committee, working as an examiner for the H.S.C. examination conducted by the State and other such work ordinarily performed by full time permanent teachers of an educational institution. Despite this, her services were not made permanent as the Management failed to submit the necessary proposal to the Education Department for approval of the Petitioner’s services.

5. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5257 of 2019 in this Court seeking directions to the Management to send a proposal for approval of the Petitioner’s services to the State Education Department and further direct the Education Department to grant approval to their appointment and release grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the teachers. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Management terminated the Petitioner’s services leading to this Court passing protective orders restraining the Management from filling up the posts occupied by the Petitioner and paying salary to the Petitioner, etc.

6. There were other similarly placed teachers of the same college suffering similar fate and they too filed separate Writ Petitions in this Court seeking similar relief. In its Order of 22nd February 2022, this Court made specific observations such as firstly, even though the appointment letters indicate the appointment to be purely on temporary basis, for all practical purposes, the appointment was treated by the Management as regular and permanent appointment; secondly, the Pavitra Portal had no application to the Petitioner’s appointment, it being made in the year 2015, i.e., prior to the introduction of the Pavitra Portal; and thirdly, the ban on recruitment also had no application since the appointment was that of a commerce subject, which was an exception to the general ban on recruitment. Thus, this Court directed the Management to submit a proposal for approval of the Petitioner’s services to the Education Department within a period of four weeks from the date of that order and further directed the Education Department to decide the proposal at the earliest. The Management was also directed to pay differential salary to the Petitioner within a specified time.

7. The Management thereafter submitted the proposal. However on 12th May 2022, the proposal was rejected by the Education Department on the grounds that the provisions of Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 23rd June 2017 pertaining to making appointment via Pavitra Portal was contravened, the procedure provided under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top