Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Devi Saraswati Mahila Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and Nitin Keshao Lende, challenged the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner no.2 as Laboratory Attendant. The dispute arose from a second round of litigation; in the first round, this Court in Writ Petition No.2998/2021 had directed reconsideration of the proposal for approval. The Education Officer, upon reconsideration, rejected the proposal citing five reasons, including that the post of Laboratory Attendant was clubbed with three posts of Peon for reservation purposes as per the roster approved by the Backward Class Cell, and that the appointment was made from the open category instead of the reserved Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioners argued that the post of Laboratory Attendant was a solitary post and could not be clubbed with Peon posts, and that the roster approved in 2012 could not be applied retrospectively to the appointment made in 2009. The respondents contended that the roster was valid and binding, and that the management had already acted upon it by filling Peon posts. The court, after considering Article 16 of the Constitution of India and Rule 9(7) of the MEPS Rules, held that the roster approved by the Backward Class Cell was binding and the clubbing of posts was permissible. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and dismissed the petition, upholding the refusal of approval.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Clubbing of Posts - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 9(7) - The court considered whether the Education Officer erred in clubbing the post of Laboratory Attendant with posts of Peon for reservation purposes. The court held that the roster approved by the Backward Class Cell, which clubbed all four posts (three Peon and one Laboratory Attendant) together, was valid and binding, and the petitioner management could not unilaterally treat the Laboratory Attendant post as a solitary post exempt from reservation. (Paras 5-9) B) Service Law - Reservation - Retrospective Application of Roster - Article 16 of the Constitution of India - The court examined whether the roster approved in 2012 could be applied retrospectively to the appointment made in 2009. The court held that the roster point, once approved, governs the filling of posts and the management was bound to follow it; the subsequent approval does not render the roster inapplicable to earlier appointments if the post remained unfilled. (Paras 8-9) C) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Compliance with Reservation Policy - The court upheld the refusal of approval by the Education Officer, finding that the appointment of petitioner no.2, who belonged to the open category, could not be approved as the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category as per the approved roster. The court dismissed the petition. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer was justified in refusing approval to the appointment of petitioner no.2 as Laboratory Attendant on the ground that the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category as per the approved roster, and whether the clubbing of the post of Laboratory Attendant with posts of Peon for reservation purposes is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 31-10-2023 refusing approval to the appointment of petitioner no.2 is upheld.
Law Points
- Reservation roster
- clubbing of posts
- MEPS Rules 1981 Rule 9(7)
- Article 16 of Constitution of India
- retrospective application of roster
