Minority Educational Institution’s Right to Appoint Teachers – Applicability of Government Resolution on Surplus Teachers – Section 3(2), Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) – Proposal for Approval of Appointment – Reconsideration Ordered

The Court held that the Minority Educational Institution had the autonomy to fill vacancies without being subject to the ban on fresh recruitment imposed by the Government Resolution.

The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act protect the rights of Minority Educational Institutions to appoint staff and that the ban on recruitment cannot override this statutory protection (Para 7, 14, 15).

Precedents:

• Sindhi Education Society v. Chief Secretary Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 8 SCC 49

• St. Francis De Sales Education Society v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 3 Mah LJ 261

• Pramati Education & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 30(1) – Right of Minority Educational Institutions

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) – Section 3(2) – Autonomy in Appointment of Staff

• Government Resolution Dated 02.05.2012 – Ban on Fresh Recruitment Until Absorption of Surplus Teachers

Subjects:

Minority Educational Institution – Approval of Appointment – Surplus Teachers – Recruitment Ban – Shikshan Sevak – Autonomy of Institution – Rejection of Proposal – Reconsideration Ordered

Nature of the Litigation:

The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the proposal for approval of her appointment as Shikshan Sevak by the Educational Officer, citing the availability of surplus teachers.

Who Asked the Court and for What Remedy:

The Petitioner, Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar, sought quashing of the impugned order dated 26.05.2017 and requested the Court to direct the Respondents to approve her appointment.

Reason for Filing the Case:

The Petitioner’s appointment proposal was rejected on the ground of the existence of surplus teachers, without considering the Minority Educational Institution’s right to appoint staff independently.

What Has Already Been Decided Until Now:

The Court set aside the impugned order and directed reconsideration of the proposal without rejecting it on the ground of surplus teachers.

Issues:

a) Whether the Minority Educational Institution’s right to appoint staff under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act was violated? b) Whether the rejection of the proposal based on the Government Resolution on surplus teachers was justified?

Submissions/Arguments:

a) The Petitioner contended that the institution had the right to appoint staff without the restriction imposed by the Government Resolution. b) The Respondents argued that the ban on recruitment until the absorption of surplus teachers applied to all aided schools.