Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
N.M.V. High School and College through its Principal - Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Dagadu Kshirsagar - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 4964, 5142 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025
Ms.Meena Doshi for the Petitioners Management in WP/4964/2025.
Dr.U.P.Warunjikar i/by Ms. Sonali Chavan for the Petitioner
Employee in WP/5142/2025.
Mrs.Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/4964/2025.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/5142/2025
An unreasoned order lacks validity; the content of a resolution should be prioritized over its form in administrative decisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Approval for appointment - Management and Employee both petitioning against the same order regarding the Employee's appointment from part-time to full-time - The Deputy Director of Education rejected the proposal solely on the ground of lack of a formal resolution from the Management. (Paras 4-8)
(B) Reasoned orders - The court emphasized that an unreasoned order cannot be sustained as it indicates a lack of application of mind and appreciation of evidence. (Paras 11-12)
(C) Content vs. Form - The court held that the content of the resolution should be prioritized over its form, and the rejection of the proposal based on language was unjustified. (Paras 18-20)
Facts of the case:
The Employee, initially appointed as a part-time teacher, sought approval for a full-time position, which was denied due to the Management's failure to pass a resolution. The court found that the necessary resolution existed but was not adequately considered.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order, directing the approval of the Employee's full-time appointment effective from the date of his initial appointment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Management's resolution was sufficient for approval and the validity of the Deputy Director's rejection based on form rather than content.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of a reasoned order from the Deputy Director indicated a failure to apply proper judgment, and the content of the resolution was sufficient for approval.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. In the first Petition, the Management is the Petitioners before us. In the second Petition, the Employee is the Petitioner, having filed an independent Petition after suffering the same impugned order, as like the Management. Since the issue raised by both the Petitioners has it’s origin in the same order, we are deciding both the Petitions together.
3. For the sake of brevity, first Petitioners would be referred to as the Management and the second Petitioner would be referred to as the Employee.
4. In the first Petition, the Management has put forth prayer clauses (a) and (b), as under :
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any other writ, order or direction of like or similar nature and be pleased to call for records and proceedings from the Respondent No.3 and after going through the same legality and propriety of the same, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7.5.2024 (at Exhibit “T”hereto);
(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to grant approval to the proposal submitted by the Petitioners and be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to release the pay of a full time teacher for the period 1.7.2014 to 31.5.2022 (pay for the part time post as already been disbursed to the Respondent No.1 for the said period)”.
5. The Employee has put forth prayer clauses (A) and (B), as under :-
“A. Be please to call for the record and proceedings of the order dated 07/05/2024 passed by the Respondent no. 2 and thereby, after going through the legality, validity and proprietary of the order dated 07/05/2024, be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 07/05/2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and further direct the Respondent no. 2 to grant approval to the proposal made by the Respondent no. 4;
B. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the Respondent no. 2 to convert the service of the Petitioner from a part-time teacher to a full-time teacher from 15/06/2013 till May, 2022 on such terms and conditions as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit”.
6. It is apparent from both these Petitions that there is a long history of litigation on the same issue revolving around the approval to the posting of the Employee from the part-time post to the full time post. The Employee was initially appointed on the part time post of Physical Training Teacher from 1st October, 2000. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (the Act of 1977) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (the Rules of 1981), are applicable to the Management Institute.
7. Insofar as the first approval to the part-time appointment of the Employee, the said issue is put to rest and there is no controversy. When the Employee was not being granted approval as a full time Teacher, he preferred Writ Petition No. 5349 of 2022. Since it was informed that the proposal was pending adjudication, the Division Bench of this Court disposed off the said Petition by an order dated 4th May, 2022, issuing a short direction for an early decision on the proposal, by 15th June, 2022. This Court was conscious of the fact that the Employee was to superannuate on 31st May, 2022. When the decision in pursuance to this direction was not arrived at, the Employee preferred Contempt Petition No. 576 of 2022, which is pending and is on the supplementary board today.
8. It is obvious that after the Contempt Petition was filed, the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune, Mr. Rajendra Ahire, has delivered a single sentence order rejecting the proposal on the solitary ground that the Management never passed a Resolution appointing the Employee on the full time po
