1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3813 OF 2014

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3814 OF 2014

WRIT PETITION NO.3816 OF 2014

Office Notes, Office

Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's

orders or directions

and

Registrar's

orders.

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr.S.S.Kazi, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.S.K.Kadam, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &

V.K.JADHAV, JJ.

Date : 15.12.2014.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Mr.Kazi, learned counsel submits that proposals were

submitted seeking approval to the appointment of Clerk/Teacher in

the petitioner institution. The said proposal seeking approval to the

appointment of the Clerk/Teacher has been rejected by the

Education officer only on the ground that as per Government

Resolution dated 2.5.2012, the approval can not be granted to the

Teachers on grant-in-aid post. The learned counsel submits that

Government Resolution dated 2.5.2012 can not be applied to the

2

minority institution as has been held by this Court in a case of

“Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust,Aurangabad Vs. The State

of Maharashtra and another” vide judgment dated 7.10.2013.

3.

Mr.Kadam, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submits that the

order has been rightly passed. The Government Resolution dated

2.5.2012 does not permit the appointment of persons as surplus

candidates are required to be absorbed.

4.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned

counsel for respective parties.

5.

This Court in “Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust,

Aurangabad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another”

referred supra has set aside the similar communication and the

Education Officer was directed to process proposals for approval of

the persons appointed by the petitioners without being detained by

Government Resolution dated 2.5.2-12.

6.

In light of the above, we pass the following order :

a)

The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The

proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the persons

appointed by the petitioners shall not be rejected only on the ground

that there was a ban on appointment on aided post as the surplus

candidates were required to be absorbed. The Respondent

Education Officer shall consider the said proposals submitted by

the petitioners seeking approval to the appointment of the persons

3

appointed by it on its own merits and shall not reject it on the

ground that at the relevant time there was ban on appointment on

aided post due to absorption of surplus candidates.

b)

The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

Dt.15.12.2014.

asp/office/wp3813.14

4