Advocates:
['PANPATTE V S', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'G P']

1 wp 6358.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6358 OF 2017

1.

Shri Jalna Gujarathi Samaj Education

Society, Jalna,

Through its Secretary

2.

C.T.M.K. Gujarathi Vidyalaya (S),

Sarojini Naidu Road, Jalna,

Tq. and Dist.: Jalna, 

Through its Headmaster

3.

Ramesh Purushottam Gurap,

Age: 27 Years, Occu.: Service as

Shikshan Sevak,

R/o.: Balaji Nagar, Jalna,

Tq. And Dist.: Jalna

4.

Nitin Subhashrao Jadhav,

Age: 27 Years, Occu.: Service as 

Shikshan Sevak, R/o.: Old Jalna,

Jalna, Tq. and Dist.: Jalna

5.

Sudam Devrao Chilgar,

Age: 32 Years, Occu.: Service as 

Shikshan Sevak, R/o.: Watur Fata,

Jalna, Tq. and Dist.: Jalna

6.

Dnyaneshwar Chandrakant Kharat,

Age: 30 Years, Occu.: Service as

Shikshan Sevak, R/o.: Sambhaji Nagar,

Jalna, Tq. and Dist.: Jalna

7.

Satish Bhimrao Nivre,

Age: 27 Years, Occu.: Service as

2 wp 6358.17

Shikshan Sevak, R/o.: Sonal Nagar,

Jalna, Tq. and Dist.: Jalna

8.

Smt. Amruta Narayanrao Kalwatre,

Age: 29 Years, Occu.: Service as 

Shikshan Sevak, R/o.: Badnapur,

Tq.: Badnapru, Dist.: Jalna

9.

Chandrakant Gajanan Mutkule,

Age: 25 Years, Occu.: Service as

Shikshan Sevak, R/o.: At Chalisgaon,

Post: Chikhli,

Tq.: Badnapur, Dist.: Jalna 

..    Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai­32

2.

The Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Jalna

..  Respondents

Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondents.

CORAM  : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE

 : 9  ^th 

   January, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :

1.

Rule.  

2.

Rule returnable forthwith.   With the consent of learned

3 wp 6358.17

counsel   for   respective   parties   matter   is   taken   up   for   final

hearing.

3.

Under the impugned order the proposal seeking approval

to the appointment of the petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 is rejected.

4.

Mr. Panpatte, learned advocate for the petitioners submits

that   the   petitioner   –   Institution   is   minority   Institution.

According   to   the   learned   advocate   the   proposal   is   rejected

basically on the ground that permission has not been obtained.

The procedure for filling in the post is not followed and that

there   was   ban   on   recruitment   and   surplus   candidates   were

required to be absorbed.

5.

According   to   the   learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners,

though applications were given seeking permission to fill in the

posts the respondent ­ Education Officer did not respond to the

same and thereafter advertisement were issued on 11.9.2016 and

14.9.2016.  Pursuant to advertisement the selection process was

followed and the petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 were appointed.   The

learned   advocate   submits   that   certificate   is   already   filed   on

record   notifying   the   petitioner   ­   Institution   as   a   minority

Institution.

6.

Learned   A.G.P.   submits   that   the   permission   of   the

Education officer was not obtained by the petitioner.  There are

4 wp 6358.17

large number of surplus candidates to be absorbed.  Considering

these   aspects   the   Education   Officer   has   rightly   rejected   the

approval.

7.

We have considered the submissions.

8.

The Government has issued resolution thereby stating that

the   minority   institutions   cannot   be   mandated   to   absorb   the

surplus teachers.  It is up to the minority Institutions to absorb

the surplus teachers or not.

9.

It appears that the petitioner No. 1 has given applications

on number of occasions seeking permission from the Education

Officer to fill in the vacant post, however, the Education Officer

did   not   respond   to   the   applications   and   after   waiting   for

considerable time the advertisements were issued to fill in