Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
Smt. Vaishali Raoso Ghadage – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No.160 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Ms. A.N. Bandiwadekar
For the Respondents: Mr. N.C. Walimbe
The court ruled that appointments in open category may proceed despite backlog in reserved categories if legal processes are followed correctly.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition filed to challenge the order rejecting the appointment of Assistant Teacher - The refusal was based on alleged backlog in reserved posts and illegality in appointment process. The Court found substantial compliance with procedures and disregarded vague grounds of rejection. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Education Law - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and Rules - It was held that an open category appointment can proceed even with existing backlog in reserved categories, provided due process is followed. The Court affirmed its stance from prior judgments where similar situations were addressed. (Paras 18-20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the refusal of approval for the appointment of the first petitioner as an Assistant Teacher due to cited procedural violations and backlog issues.
Findings of Court:
Respondent’s rejection of the proposal was deemed arbitrary as petitioner followed necessary legal protocols in seeking appointment approval.
Issues: Main issues centered around whether the refusal of approval was justified given the backlog of reserved category appointments and adherence to legal recruitment processes.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of approval by the respondent was found lacking as it did not consider the merit of the appointment within the open category, thus not finding justification under the existing law.
Result: Writ petition allowed and the impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial court proceedings outlined. (Para 1) |
| 2. application for assistant teacher approval due to prior vacancy. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. grounds for rejection of appointment proposal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. importance of due process in school appointments. (Para 12 , 19) |
| 5. court's observations concerning prior cases and the rejection validity. (Para 13) |
| 6. court's decision and the rationale behind approving the appointment. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 7. approval granted; order of rejection quashed. (Para 21 , 22) |
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. By the present petition filed under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following prayers :-
"a) Rule Nisi be issued and records and proceedings be called for.
b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.7.2018 (EXHIBIT-G) issued by the Respondent No.2, and accordingly the Respondent No.2 may be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 31.7.2017 in the un-aided Secondary School of the Petitioner No.2, with all consequential service benefits.
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent No.2 may be directed to grant current approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School of the Petitioner No.2, with all consequential service benefits.
d) Costs of this Petitioner be provided for.
e) Any other order in the interest of justice and kindness be passed as and when necessary."
3. The petitioner No.1 came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 31.07.2017 in the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/- G.P. Rs.4,300/- on the un-aided post of Assistant Teacher in the school run by the petitioner No.2 / Trust. The petitioner No.2 is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and presently runs 29 schools including the school in which the petitioner No.1 came to be appointed. The said school does not receive any grant-in-aid from the Education Department and therefore is an un-aided school, as such the posts of teachers in the said un-aided school are sanctioned on un-aided basis. It is the case of the petitioners that, one Shri Tatoba Appa Narale (B.A., B.Ed.) was working as a full time Assistant Teacher in the said school on un-aided basis. The appointment of Shri. Tatoba Appa Narale was granted approval by respondent No.2 / Education Ofcer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli. He was transferred from the said un- aided school to Dighanchi Girls High School, Dighanchi, Dist. Sangli (un-aided school) belonging to petitioner No.2 / Trust on 12.07.2017. In view of the same, the post of the teacher sanctioned on un-aided basis in the said school became vacant.
4. It is the petitioners' case that, as per the roster of the said school, there was deficit / backlog of appointment of teachers in the open category. According to the petitioners there were 11 posts for open category which were vacant / unfilled. Therefore, the petitioner No.2 / Trust decided to fill up the aforesaid un-aided vacancy from open category. The petitioner No.2 / Trust published a public advertisement in the daily newspaper for inviting applications for the aforesaid post on un-aided basis. In response to the advertisement the petitioner No.1 applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner No.2 / Trust followed the due process of law, conducted interviews of the selected candidates and in the process petitioner No.1 was selected and recommended for appointment. The Co-ordination Committee of the petitioner No.2 / Trust passed a resolution dated 10.06.2017 to appoint the petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher on the said un-aided post which had become vacant due to transfer of Shri. Tatoba Appa Narale to another school.
5. Thereafter, the Head M
