Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
Shree Doodhganga Vedhganga - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.12783 OF 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 16, 226, and 227 - Approval for appointment of Junior Clerk - Petitioners challenged the rejection of their proposal for appointment of Petitioner No.3, citing lack of prior permission from the Government as the reason for rejection - Court found that the appointment was on a sanctioned post and the rejection was based on misplaced reliance on Government Resolutions - Court emphasized the need for transparency in recruitment processes in aided schools. (Paras 1, 3, 9, 21)
(B) Recruitment Process - The recruitment process must conform to fundamental rights and ensure transparency, including proper advertisement in widely circulated newspapers to prevent arbitrariness. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought approval for the appointment of Petitioner No.3 as Junior Clerk after the previous occupant retired. The proposal was rejected by Respondent No.2 on grounds of lack of prior permission and adherence to staffing patterns. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the rejection order, directing approval for Petitioner No.3's appointment and emphasizing that the irregularities were committed by the management, not the candidate. (Paras 21, 22)
Issues: Whether the Petitioners are entitled to approval for the appointment of Petitioner No.3 as Junior Clerk? (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the appointment was valid as it was on a sanctioned post, and the irregularities in the recruitment process should not penalize the candidate. (Paras 17, 18)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; the impugned order quashed and approval for appointment granted.
JUDGMENT :
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The decision dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2, rejecting the Proposal No.257 dated 21.09.2022 submitted by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.3 on the post of Junior Clerk in the Petitioner No.2 High School, is assailed in the present petition.
3. Factual Matrix:-
(a) Petitioner No.2 (High School) is managed and run by the Petitioner No.1(Institution). A post of Junior Clerk is earmarked in the ‘Sanch Manyata’ pertaining to the Petitioner No.2, from the year 2012 till 2021. Mr. Dattatraya Shripat Patil was working on the said post.
(b) Upon the superannuation of said Dattatraya Shripat Patil, on 31.07.2022, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 applied to the Respondent No.2, inquiring availability of any surplus non-teaching staff and if not to accord permission to initiate the process of recruitment to fill up the said post, by issuing advertisement. Draft of the proposed advertisement was appended to the said application dated 15.07.2022.
(c) As no response was received from the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 published advertisement in the newspaper"Øakrhflag"[eaxGokj rk- 0„ vkWxLV „0„„ Mkd vko`fr rk- 0…@0‰@„0„„] notifying the vacancy of ‘Junior Clerk’ in the Petitioner No.2 School. Candidates fulfilling the eligibility criteria of 12th (HSC) and computer knowledge, were called for interview scheduled on 10.08.2022, along with documents.
(d) Four candidates including the Petitioner No.3 participated in the said selection process.
(e) Petitioner No.3 has passed Secondary School Certificate Examination in the month of March 2008 and completed Maharashtra State Certificate in Information Technology (MS-CIT).
(f) In the interviews held on 10.08.2022, Petitioner No.3 was found eligible, fulfilling the required qualifications and consequently was selected.
(g) Appointment order dated 11.08.2022, was issued to the Petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.3 joined the Petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 17.08.2022.
(h) On 21.09.2022, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted Proposal No. 257 seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 as a ‘Junior Clerk’ in the Petitioner No.2 School. Required documents were appended to the said proposal dated 21.09.2022.
(i) By order 28.10.2022, Respondent No.2 rejected the said proposal dated 21.09.2022 (“Impugned order”). Ground of rejection essentially is that the recruitment process commenced by the Petitioner No.1 was without prior permission of the Government and before allotment of post by the Competent Authority as per revised staffing pattern and criteria fixed by the Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019. Impugned order makes a reference to the Government Resolutions dated 10.06.2010, 12.02.2015, 23.10.2013.
4. Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following substantial relief:-
“[A] That this Hon’ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the Order dated 28th October, 2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 Education Officer [Secondary] Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and thus after going through the said order, said order being illegal and bad in law, same may be quashed and set aside and thus further proposal No. 257 dated 21st September 2022 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 and 2 for the approval of the post of Petitioner No. 3 of the post of ‘Junior Clerk’ may be approved and thus further directions may be given to the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer that all benefits which the present Petitioner is entitled after the approval and since date of appointment may be given to her.
[B] That further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 to Respondents that after the grant of approval, necessary ‘Shalarth ID’ to be issued to the present Petitioner as a consequence.”
5. Respondents have opposed the pe
The recruitment process for non-teaching staff in aided schools must adhere to transparency and fundamental rights, ensuring that candidates are not penalized for management's irregularities.
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....
Approval for appointment of educational staff must adhere to existing vacancies and established communication protocol; unmanaged delays by authorities warrant administrative accountability.
Staff appointments valid despite officer inaction if procedure followed sans fraud; 2013 staffing GR inoperative ab initio per 2015 abeyance; prior patterns apply to interim vacancies; no retrospecti....
The appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
The court ruled that procedural irregularities in the appointment process do not invalidate the appointment, especially when the candidate has served uninterruptedly for over a decade.
The recruitment process for educational appointments must be conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with statutory provisions to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization u....
Post of Clerk – Selection process - Appointment of petitioner/respondent, if allowed, will amount allowing a person to be appointed without following procedure of law as selection process of petition....
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
