Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar, was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on 17.06.2013 by Respondent No.5 School, which is run by Respondent No.4, a Minority Educational Institution receiving 100% aid from the State of Maharashtra. The vacancy arose due to the retirement of a teacher on 31.01.2013. The school submitted a proposal on 17.05.2017 seeking approval of the appointment, which was rejected by the Education Officer (Respondent No.3) on 26.05.2017 on the ground that surplus teachers were available for absorption and that a Government Decision dated 02.05.2012 imposed a ban on recruitment until such surplus teachers were adjusted. The Petitioner challenged this order. The Court noted that the Respondent No.4 is a Minority Educational Institution and that the Impugned order did not consider this status. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sindhi Education Society v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, which held that the right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of choice among qualified candidates, and that the State cannot impose restrictions beyond prescribing qualifications. The Court also distinguished the case of Vasant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, which dealt with non-minority institutions and the mandate under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act to absorb surplus teachers. The Court held that the ban on recruitment and the requirement to absorb surplus teachers do not apply to Minority Educational Institutions. Consequently, the Court quashed the Impugned order and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal and grant approval within four weeks, subject to the Petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications and the post being vacant and sanctioned.
Headnote
A) Minority Educational Institutions - Autonomy in Appointments - Government Ban on Recruitment - The Government ban on recruitment until absorption of surplus teachers does not apply to Minority Educational Institutions. The right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of choice among qualified candidates. (Paras 5-9)
B) MEPS Act - Section 5(1) - Surplus Teachers - Absorption - The mandate under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act to ascertain availability of surplus teachers before filling vacancies does not apply to Minority Educational Institutions. (Paras 6-7)
C) Constitutional Law - Article 30 - Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions - The autonomy of a Minority Educational Institution in making appointments cannot be curtailed by a general ban on recruitment. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer was right in rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on the ground that surplus teachers are available for absorption, without considering that the Respondent No.4 is a Minority Educational Institution.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the Impugned order dated 26.05.2017, and directed the Respondent No.3 to reconsider the proposal dated 17.05.2017 and grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak within four weeks from the date of the order, subject to the Petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications and the post being vacant and sanctioned.
Law Points
- Minority Educational Institutions have autonomy in appointments
- Government ban on recruitment not applicable to minority institutions
- MEPS Act Section 5(1) proviso not applicable to minority institutions
- Right to administer includes right to appoint teachers of choice among qualified candidates
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 263
Writ Petition No.12388 of 2022
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Ashwin D. Bhobe
Mr. Ajay Joshi for the Petitioner, Mr. Akil Kapade for the Respondent No.4 and 5, Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP for the State
Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Education (Secondary & High S), Mantralaya, Mumbai; The Deputy Director Secondary & H.S. Pune Region; Educational Officer [Primary] Solapur Zilla Parishad; Union Education Society; Union Education Society’s Primary School; The Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation, Primary Shikshan Mandal, Solapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging the order of the Education Officer refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Impugned order dated 26.05.2017 and direction to the Respondents to grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment.
Filing Reason
The Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval of the Petitioner's appointment on the ground that surplus teachers are available for absorption and a ban on recruitment exists.
Previous Decisions
The proposal was initially forwarded to the Director of Education and then to the Principal Secretary, who rejected it on 03.11.2015. A fresh proposal was submitted on 17.05.2017, which was rejected by the Impugned order.
Issues
Whether the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on the ground of availability of surplus teachers and the ban on recruitment, without considering that the Respondent No.4 is a Minority Educational Institution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Respondent No.4 is a Minority Educational Institution and has the prerogative to fill up posts; the ban on recruitment does not apply to minority institutions; vacancies were available and the Petitioner was appointed after a proper selection process.
State/Respondents supported the Impugned order, citing the Government Decision dated 02.05.2012 imposing a ban on recruitment until surplus teachers are absorbed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Government ban on recruitment and the requirement to absorb surplus teachers under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act do not apply to Minority Educational Institutions. Such institutions have the autonomy to appoint teachers of their choice among qualified candidates, as protected under Article 30 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
The Impugned order rejected the proposal dated 17.05.2017 submitted by the Respondent No.4 on the ground that surplus teachers are available and until and unless such surplus teachers are absorbed, the proposal cannot be considered and therefore, rejected.
In the instant case, Respondent No.4 is a Minority Educational Institution, as such it would be the prerogative of such institution to fill up the post.
The Court considered the question whether the appointment of teachers in an aided institution by the College Service Commission by restricting the petitioner’s right to appointment is a reasonable restriction.
Procedural History
The Petitioner was appointed on 17.06.2013. The school submitted a proposal for approval on 17.05.2017. The Education Officer rejected it on 26.05.2017. The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition in 2022. The Court reserved judgment on 30.01.2025 and pronounced on 26.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 3(2), Section 5(1)
