Compliance with mandatory provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules is essential for the validity of appointments in private schools.

JUDGMENT

MANGESH S.PATIL, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Learned AGP waives service for respondents nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Jadhavar waives for respondents nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. S.V. Deshmukh waives service for respondent no. 7. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner is seeking approval to his appointment as a teacher by the respondent no. 8 - management of the school of which the respondent no. 7 is the headmaster.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Munde would submit that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevek from N.T. category pursuant to a public advertisement dtd. 7/4/2010 by the order dtd. 16/4/2010. His appointment with effect from 16/4/2010 to 15/4/2013 was also approved by the respondent no. 6 - Education Officer. Without sufficient reason, the respondent no. 4 by the impugned order has cancelled the approval for untenable reasons. The law does not require any no objection of the Education Department before undertaking a recruitment process. There was a public advertisement issued in daily 'Vaidyanath Varta''. Since the recruitment was to fill in the post reserved for backward classes, as held by this Court in Writ Petition no. 8587 of 2016 with connected matters, in the matter of Smt. Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary and Others decided on 10/7/2017, approval could not have been revoked and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

5. Mr. Munde would submit that few other teachers who were appointed in the same recruitment process and whose appointment was subsequently approved, namely, Shri P.B. Kendre and Shri G.P. Kolhe has not been revoked. There was no reason to take a different view in respect of the petitioner more so by referring to the validity of the recruitment process.

6. The learned AGP would submit that although the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the then Education Officer (Primary), it is pursuant to the directions of this Court in Writ Petition no. 6982 of 2017, that the impugned order was passed by extending an opportunity to the petitioner and even granting the opportunity to the management through the Headmaster, of being heard. He would submit that the objective decision has been taken by examining the record that at the relevant time, there was only 1 vacancy of S.T. candidate and the petitioner though belonged to N.T. category, was appointed against the S.T. category. There was no material regarding any intimation having been given to the Education Officer in compliance with sec. 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service), Act, 1977 and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MEPS Act and the MEPS Rules). Considering the staffing pattern, the vacancies and in the absence of any evidence regarding compliance with the provisions of sec. 5 and rule 9 of the MEPS Act and the MEPS Rules, the impugned order is unassailable.

7. The learned AGP would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to seek parity with the other two candidates Mr. Kendre and Mr. Kolhe, who were not appointed against a different category. Kendre was O.B.C. whereas Kolhe was recruited against an open post. It was also found that at the relevant time, as per the roaster there was backlog of posts of one S.T. category and one O.B.C. category and steps ought to have been taken to fill the backlog of those two categories which the management had failed to undertake as per the roaster which was duly approved on 8/1/2007.

8. On behalf of the management - respondent no. 7, Mr. Deshmukh would also submit that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by following necessary procedure as is required by the MEPS Act the MEPS Rules and the impugned order is passed validly for the right reasons.

9. In rejoinder, Mr. Munde would sub