Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Khushal Sadashiv Medhe and Aakash Kailash Sali, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. They sought quashing of letters dated 31.8.2017 issued by respondent no. 3 (Education Officer) and 5.9.2017 issued by respondent no. 4 (Municipal High School & Junior College), and a direction to respondent no. 3 to consider their claim afresh. The petitioners were appointed as Shipai Sevak in respondent no. 4 school on 21.09.2015 after an advertisement published on 04.09.2015. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed under reserved category and petitioner no. 2 under open category. The Managing Committee passed a resolution on 14.09.2015 to submit a proposal for approval to the Education Officer, which was submitted on 28.12.2015. However, on 23.02.2016, respondent no. 2 (Deputy Director of Education) rejected the proposal on two grounds: (i) as per Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012, unless 100% absorption of surplus teachers is done, no recruitment of teaching and non-teaching employees would be made; and (ii) as per Government Resolution dated 20.06.2014, the proposed committee shall take decision regarding grant of approval and permission for new recruitment, but no such permission was granted. The petitioners contended that the ban on recruitment was lifted by the G.R. dated 02.05.2012 itself, and therefore the rejection was unsustainable. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the Education Officer had not considered the lifting of the ban and had mechanically rejected the proposal. The court set aside the impugned letters and directed respondent no. 3 to reconsider the proposal afresh within four weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the school authorities. The court also directed that the petitioners shall continue to work and be paid salary as per rules until fresh decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Approval of Appointment - Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 - The Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of petitioners as Shipai Sevak on the ground that as per G.R. dated 02.05.2012, unless 100% absorption of surplus teachers is done, no recruitment of teaching and non-teaching employees would be made. However, the court noted that the said G.R. itself lifted the ban on recruitment. The rejection was therefore unsustainable. (Paras 3-5) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Ban on Recruitment - Government Resolution dated 20.06.2014 - The Education Officer also rejected the proposal on the ground that no permission for new recruitment was granted by the proposed committee as per G.R. dated 20.06.2014. The court held that the Education Officer ought to have considered the lifting of ban and passed appropriate orders. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of approval for appointment of petitioners as Shipai Sevak by the Education Officer on the ground of ban on recruitment without considering the lifting of ban by Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 is sustainable.
Final Decision
The impugned letters dated 31.8.2017 and 5.9.2017 are quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioners' appointments afresh within four weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the school authorities. The petitioners shall continue to work and be paid salary as per rules until fresh decision.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012
- Government Resolution dated 20.06.2014
- Recruitment ban
- Approval of appointments
- Surplus employees absorption
