Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
MANGESH S. PATIL, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Gitanjali, d/o. Prakash Patil - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2549 Of 2018 With Civil Application No.5618 Of 2018 With Writ Petition No.2550 Of 2018 With Civil Application No.5651 Of 2018 With Writ Petition No.2553 Of 2018 With Civil Application No.5616 Of 2018 With Writ Petition No.2570 Of 2018 With Civil Application No.5654 Of 2018
Decided On : 10-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Ms. Pradnya S. Talekar i/b Talekar and Associates, Adv., Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP, Mr. N.E. Deshmukh, Adv., Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, Adv.

Appointments against reserved posts must adhere strictly to statutory procedures to avoid discrimination and nepotism.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 5(1), 9(8), and 9(9) - Appointment of school teachers against reserved posts - The Deputy Director of Education revoked appointments due to procedural violations and allegations of nepotism. Notably, permanent appointments were made against reserved posts without following statutory requirements, resulting in discrimination. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 34)

(B) Judicial authority - High Court's role in reviewing administrative orders - The court recognized the authority of the Deputy Director to investigate and revoke approvals based on serious allegations and previously granted liberty. (Paras 8, 20)

(C) Procedural due process - The court reinforced the necessity for compliance with statutory requirements and the impact of non-compliance on the validity of appointments. (Paras 6, 24, 36)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged revocation orders related to their school teacher appointments approved by the Education Officer. They alleged compliance with statutory procedures, while the respondent argued breaches and nepotism.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the revocation of appointments, emphasizing adherence to reservation policies and procedures.

Issues: Whether the authority had jurisdiction to revoke approvals and whether processes adhered to the reservation policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the approvals were rightly revoked for not complying with statutory provisions regarding reservations and due process.

Result: All writ petitions are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. validity of teacher appointment approvals (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. analysis of petitions based on appointments and revocations. (Para 5)
3. arguments on legality of revocation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's analysis on jurisdiction and procedure (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. establishing grounds for interference in approval (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. court's final order and repercussions (Para 28 , 37)
7. final ruling reinforcing the dismissal of petitions. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard litigating sides finally.

2. These petitions can be disposed of by common judgment and order, as relevant facts and points for determination are common. Petitioners are the employees of respondent Nos.4 and 5 Management. They are challenging common orders dated 06.02.2018 and 29.06.2017 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education, revoking approval to their appointments.

3. The sequence of events in all the matters can be summarized as follows :-

Sr. Nos.	Events/Documents	WP/2549/2018 Geetanjali Patil	WP/ 2550/2018 Pankaj Pawar	WP/ 2553/2018 Dhairyasheel Patil	WP/ 2570/2018 Deepak Pawar
1	Advertisement	21.06.2011	08.06.2010	28.01.2004
2	Appointment	12.07.2011	14.06.2010	02.04.2004	02.04.2004 (Promotion)
3	Approval	30.12.2011	19.10.2010	29.12.2009	29.12.2009
4	Enquiry Report of Dy. Director of Education cancelling approvals.	10.10.2013	10.10.2013	10.10.2013	10.10.2013
5	Dismissal	19.11.2013	19.11.2013	19.11.2013	19.11.2013 (reversion)
6	Dismissal set aside by Judgment and order passed by School Tribunal	28.03.2014	28.03.2014	28.03.2014	28.03.2014
7	HC judgment and order upholding judgment of School Tribunal	08.03.2016	08.03.2016	08.03.2016	08.03.2016
8	Order of Dy. Director of Education	29.06.2017	29.06.2017	29.06.2017	29.06.2017
9	Orders in review passed by Deputy Director of Education	16.01.2018	16.01.2018	16.01.2018	16.01.2018

4. It is the case of petitioners that they were appointed in respondent No.5 School after following due procedure of law. Their appointments were approved by respondent No.3 Education Officer on the dates referred in above chart. Intervenors in the present matter made complaints against the appointment and approval of the petitioners. An enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education, which culminated into revocation of the approvals vide report/order dated 10.10.2013. Consequently, all the petitioners were terminated and they were required to approach School Tribunals by distinct appeals. Their appeals were allowed by the Tribunal. Intervenors challenged the judgments of the Tribunal in the High Court by Writ Petition No.10004 of 2015, which was dismissed, but liberty was given to Deputy Director of Education to proceed with the report dated 10.10.2013.

5. In view of the liberty given by the High Court, Deputy Director of Education proceeded with the report and revoked the approvals granted to the petitioners. Petitioners and respondent – Management were not heard and they preferred review applications before respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education. After hearing them, orders of revocation of approvals were confirmed, thereby dismissing applications for review, which are under challenge.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Ms. Pradnya Talekar submits that respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education had no power to revoke the approvals granted to the petitioners vide order dated 29.06.2017. When appointments of the petitioners were made after following due procedure of law and were approved, it was not open to dig out old orders of approval. It is further submitted that though the appointments of the petitioners – teachers were against reserved post, there is no backlog as on today. It is further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Appointments against reserved posts must adhere strictly to statutory procedures to avoid discrimination and nepotism.

Cases Referred (6)

Related Judgments

Gitanjali, d/o. Prakash Patil VS State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department

BHARAT KISAN MEKALE VS RAVIKUMAR JETHAPPA KURNE - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1228

Gajanan VS State of Maharashtra

Pandurang Narayan Kanekar VS State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 524

Priyanka Santosh Hegishte VS State of Maharashtra - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1710

Charudatta Ramchandra Bagadi VS Secretary, Shetkari Shikshan Mandal - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1821

Shrimant VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 2103

Sonali Mallikarjun Bedgnur VS Secretary, Dnyansampada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 158

Hemant Baliram Deore vs State of Maharashtra - 2026 Supreme(Bom) 168

L. S. Vijayabhaskar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1480