Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
R.G.AVACHAT, AJIT B.KADETHANKAR
Mahadev Balkrishna Dhamange – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's 2013 appointment on sanctioned post under 2005 staffing disputed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on pre-ban appointment validity and staffing pattern applicability. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court reviews pleadings and limits issue to staffing patterns. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
1. SUBJECT MATTER:
The Petitioner - a Junior Clerk working in a private school received Education Officer’s approval to his appointment dated 16th November 2013. But the approval is made effective only from the date of new staffing pattern dated 7th March 2019. The exclusion of approval period is citing a ban on appointments imposed in 2015 owing to change in staffing pattern.
2. Heard Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Kapre, learned Assistant Government Pleader. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5- State and Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7-School Management.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the subject matter of the Petition, we heard the respective parties for final disposal of the Writ Petition with their consent.
4. Facts in brief:-
For the sake of convenience, sequence of some important dates and terminology use
GR 2013 staffing pattern held in abeyance ab initio by GR 2015; 2005 pattern continued till 2019/2020; appointments to sanctioned posts thereunder valid, approval grantable from joining date despite ....
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....
Appointments under 2005 staffing pattern entitle salary grant from appointment date; 2013 pattern abeyed ab initio by 2015 GR, 2019/2020 patterns prospective, do not affect prior valid appointments.
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 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.
Approval for appointment of educational staff must adhere to existing vacancies and established communication protocol; unmanaged delays by authorities warrant administrative accountability.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory reservation provisions in employment, rejecting claims of isolated post applicability.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of section 5(1) of the MEPS Act for minority institutions and the inapplicability of subsequent Government Resolutions to appointm....
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 court held that a petitioner selected prior to a government resolution is entitled to regular pay-scale instead of a fixed salary, quashing the tribunal's contrary decision.
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
