Advocates:
['KAZI S S', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'GP']

(1) W.P. No. 3771 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Writ Petition No. 3771 of 2016

District : Aurangabad

1. Burhani National Education Society,

Through its Secretary,

Farazdaq Shakir,

Age : 69 years,

Occupation : Service,

R/o. C/o. Burhani School Campus,

Burhani Street, Devadi Bazar,

City Chowk, Aurangabad.

2. Shaikh Nisar s/o. Shaikh Sattar,

Age : 30 years,

Occupation : Service,

R/o. Chikalthana, Pushpak Garden,

Aurangabad.

.. Petitioners.

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through Secretary,

School Education Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 100 032.

2. The Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.

.. Respondents.

............

Mr. Shamim R. Shaikh, advocate, holding for

Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Addl. Government Pleader,

for respondent nos.1 and 2.

............

(2) W.P. No. 3771 of 2016

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 3RD MAY 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :

The learned Counsel for the petitioners

undertake to deposit the deficit court-fees within a

period of two weeks from today.

2.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

3.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard

finally.

4.

It

appears

that

by

the

impugned

communication dated 3rd March 2016, respondent no.2

informed the petitioner - Institution that approval

to the appointment of petitioner no.2 as a Shikshan

Sevak cannot be granted for two reasons, firstly, no

prior permission to the said post was taken and

secondly, in view of the Government Resolution dated

2nd May 2012, there was ban for recruitment.

5.

The learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners

invited

our

attention

to

the

(3) W.P. No. 3771 of 2016

communication dated 7th September 30.08.1990 (Exhibit

"B", page 15 of the compilation with the petition)

and submits that the petitioner has placed on record

the said communication showing that the petitioner is

a minority institution. He further invited our

attention to the letter dated 1st October 2015,

written by the Head Master of the petitioner -

Management, to respondent no.3 and submits that by

the said letter, permission from the said authority

was sought for advertising the post of Shikshan Sevak

and thereafter by advertisement dated 2nd November

2015, published in 'Aurangabad Bhaskar', 'Aurangabad

Times Urdu Daily' and 'Dainik Asia Express', the post

was advertised and after adhering to the procedure

for selection, appointment of petitioner no.2 has

been made.

6.

The learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners also invited our attention to the

unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court,

in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust, Aurangabad

Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another (Writ Petition

No. 5633 of 2013), decided on 7th October 2013, and

submits that in the said judgment, view is taken by

this Court, that the appointments by minority

institutions are not liable to be withheld resorting

to the Government Resolution dated 2nd May 2012.

Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners

urged that the petition may be allowed.

(4) W.P. No. 3771 of 2016

7.

On the other hand, the learned Addl.

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents,

submit that the petitioner has not placed on record

the certificate showing that the petitioner is a

minority institution. He further submits that the

reasons assigned in the impugned communication need

no interference and, therefore, the petition may be

rejected.

8.

We have considered the submissions of the

learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Addl. Governmen