Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, appointed as an assistant teacher on 1st June 2018 at Sane Guruji Vidhya Mandir, challenged the order dated 21st September 2023 of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, which rejected approval of his appointment on two grounds: (i) the proposal was sent after five years, and (ii) the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal. The court noted that the Pavitra Portal became operational on 20th June 2018, so the rejection on that ground was not justified, following the Division Bench judgment in Rajesh Padmakar Bhangale v. State of Maharashtra. However, the court found that the delay of over five years in submitting the approval proposal was unreasonable, and the petitioner could not have remained silent for such a long period. Additionally, the court examined compliance with Rule 9(2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, which requires advertisement of vacancies in a newspaper with wide circulation and notification to the Employment Exchange and District Social Welfare Officer. The advertisement produced was in a weekly newspaper with doubtful circulation, and there was no evidence of notification to the Employment Exchange or Social Welfare Officer. The court held that such non-compliance violates Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Assistant Teacher - Compliance with Rule 9(2A) - The court held that advertisement of vacancy in a weekly newspaper with doubtful circulation does not satisfy the requirement of 'wide circulation' under Rule 9(2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, and failure to notify the Employment Exchange and District Social Welfare Officer violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 10-12)
B) Service Law - Delay in Seeking Approval - Reasonable Period - The court held that although no time limit is prescribed for submitting approval proposals, such proposals must be made within a reasonable period; a delay of over five years is unreasonable and cannot be condoned merely because the management was at fault. (Paras 5-6)
C) Service Law - Pavitra Portal - Applicability - The court held that since the Pavitra Portal became operational on 20th June 2018, appointments made before that date cannot be rejected for non-compliance with the portal requirement, relying on Rajesh Padmakar Bhangale v. State of Maharashtra. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer's order rejecting approval of the petitioner's appointment as assistant teacher on grounds of delay and non-compliance with Pavitra Portal and Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981 is justified.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment of assistant teachers in private aided schools must comply with Rule 9(2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules
- 1981
- requiring advertisement in a newspaper with wide circulation and notification to Employment Exchange and District Social Welfare Officer
- delay in seeking approval beyond reasonable period is a valid ground for rejection
- Pavitra Portal requirement not applicable for appointments before its operational date.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 266
Writ Petition No. 2187 of 2020 (referred) but main case number not mentioned
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Mr. Abasaheb D. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. Ashwin V. Hon Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin B. Munde Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. L.S. Mahajan Advocate for Respondent No.3.
The State of Maharashtra Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Education Officer rejecting approval of appointment of assistant teacher.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 21st September 2023 and direction to grant approval to his appointment.
Filing Reason
The Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval on grounds of delay and non-compliance with Pavitra Portal requirement.
Previous Decisions
The Education Officer passed the order dated 21st September 2023 rejecting approval.
Issues
Whether the rejection of approval on the ground of non-compliance with Pavitra Portal is justified when the portal was not operational at the time of appointment.
Whether the delay of over five years in submitting the approval proposal is a valid ground for rejection.
Whether the advertisement in a weekly newspaper with doubtful circulation and failure to notify Employment Exchange and Social Welfare Officer complies with Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Pavitra Portal was not operational at the time of appointment (1st June 2018) and that no time limit is prescribed for submitting approval proposals; the delay was due to management's inaction.
Respondents (State and Zilla Parishad) argued that the appointment was not through Pavitra Portal and the proposal was sent after five years, and the advertisement was not in a newspaper with wide circulation.
Ratio Decidendi
Appointments in private aided schools must comply with Rule 9(2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, which requires advertisement in a newspaper with wide circulation and notification to Employment Exchange and District Social Welfare Officer to ensure equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution. Delay in seeking approval beyond a reasonable period is a valid ground for rejection, and the petitioner cannot be absolved of responsibility for inaction.
Judgment Excerpts
In respect of the ground that the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 1st June 2018, whereas the Pavitra Portal started functioning with effect from 20th June 2018 and accordingly the insistence by the Education Officer for appointment of the petitioner through Pavitra Portal in the instant case is not justified.
Recruitment and appointment of the assistant teachers in private schools are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981... Rule 9(2A) provides for 'appointment of the staff'.
If the vacancy against which the petitioner is said to have been appointed has not been widely advertised, that itself would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which is a fundamental right.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 1st June 2018. The management sent the proposal for approval on 3rd August 2023. The Education Officer rejected it on 21st September 2023. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 16(1), Section 16(2)
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981: Rule 9, Rule 9(2A)
- Constitution of India: Article 16
