IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.
Nitin - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8196 of 2021
Decided On : 20-10-2022
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT - Article 226, Article 227 - The court examined the rejection of the petitioner's appointment approval based on the Government Resolution dated 14/10/2010, which imposed a ban on filling certain posts. The court highlighted that the petitioner, a Scheduled Caste member, followed due procedure for his appointment and that the ban had been relaxed for specific subjects, including English. The court emphasized the importance of timely action by Education Officers and the need to uphold the fundamental right to education, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and ordering the approval of his appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste teacher, challenged the rejection of his appointment approval by the Education Officer, citing that he was appointed against a sanctioned post and that the necessary permissions were sought prior to the advertisement for the position. The rejection was based on a government resolution imposing a ban on filling certain posts without prior permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had followed the proper procedure and that the management had sought permission to fill the post before advertising. The court noted the inaction of the Education Officer and the relaxation of the ban for specific subjects, concluding that the rejection of the approval was unjustified.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appointment approval was valid given the prior permissions sought and the relaxation of the ban on filling posts in certain subjects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the management's failure to obtain a No Objection Certificate was not a valid ground for rejection, especially since the petitioner had sought permission prior to the advertisement. The court emphasized the need for timely action by Education Officers and the importance of upholding the right to education.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the approval of the petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak, with further instructions for salary payment and regularization of his position.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for the parties finally, by consent.
2. The petitioner, who is the teacher, has invoked the Constitutional powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of approval by order dtd. 26/3/2021 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Latur. The approval has not been granted in view of Government Resolution dtd. 14/10/2010. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Management and the School, in which the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher since 2016.
3. The school has received the revision and has also received 100% grant-in-aid from the State. The petitioner is B.Sc. (Science and English subjects) B.Ed. and was eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Secondary School having 8th to 10th classes. He is a member of Scheduled Caste and has validity certificate. Respondent No.4 - Society running respondent No.5 - School issued advertisement on 7/12/2015 for filling up of the vacant and sanctioned post of teacher. After adopting due procedure, he was selected and respondent Nos.4 and 5 issued appointment order on 1/1/2016 appointing him as Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 1/1/2016 to 31/12/2019. His appointment was against a clear vacant and sanctioned post and within the sanctioned staffing pattern. Respondent No.5 thereafter submitted proposal to respondent No.3 for getting approval of the appointment of the petitioner, however, it has been rejected on 26/3/2021 on the ground that no prior permission from the office of respondent No.3 was taken for filling up of the vacant post. In fact, respondent No.5 had already informed to the office of respondent No.3 by making application on 2/11/2015 and had sought permission to fill up the post. The roster was duly certified by the Commissioner of B.C. Cell, Aurangabad. The petitioner also contends that the ban which was imposed by Government Resolution dtd. 14/10/2010 was relaxed in respect of subject of English, Mathematics and Science vide Government Resolution dtd. 4/9/2013, communication dtd. 19/7/2014 and Government Resolution dtd. 24/8/2018. There was no question of surplus teachers and in fact, in the impugned order, respondent No.3 had not clarified as to how many surplus teachers in the subject of English were available. The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is illegal. By way of amendment, the petitioner has also contended that when the proper procedure has been followed and even the Government had issued directions by holding meeting that approvals be granted to those teachers whose appointments have been made by obtaining no objection from the Education Department, the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 and grant approval to him.
4. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 by Ankush Bhagwat Shingade, Superintendent - (Gr.B) Education Office, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. According to him, the petitioner has not approached with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is then stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not obtained prior permission for issuance of advertisement in respect of the vacant post and, therefore, the rejection was proper.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. A. R. Kale for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State and learned Advocate Mr. B. P. Gonare for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner by bringing various documents to the notice of this Court that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and the advertisement that was published was for the reserved post i.e. from the category of Scheduled Caste. In order to show that there was a clear vacancy, the Teaching Staff Sanch has been produced from the year 2016-2017. Further, after the petition was amended, document has been produced, which is com
The court established that the failure to obtain a No Objection Certificate does not invalidate an appointment made in accordance with due procedure, especially when prior permissions were sought and....
The court established that appointments made from reserved categories must be considered valid if they follow due procedure and are against clear vacancies, irrespective of subsequent changes in the ....
The court established that educational authorities must respond timely to requests for teacher appointments, and that failure to do so cannot be used as a basis to deny approval for appointments made....
The main legal point established is that routine affairs of an institution, including appointments and approvals, should be considered independently of disputes in management.
The court established that a recruitment ban does not negate prior permissions granted for filling vacancies, and that arbitrary rejection of appointments made in compliance with such permissions is ....
The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management must adhere to the rules and regulations for the appointment of staff in private schools, including the obligation to ascertain....
The main legal point established is that vacancies in the open category should be filled from the open category, and the ban on recruitment may not apply in certain circumstances.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with the MEPS Act, 1981, in the context of minority institutions and the interpretation of the act in relation to staffi....
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.