Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrunal Mandar Joshi, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the Deputy Director of Education (respondent No.3) to regularize her services as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 15/6/2016 and grant approval to her appointment as a full-time Assistant Teacher. The petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time shikshan sevak on 13/8/2012 for a period from 14/8/2012 to 13/8/2015, which was approved in 2016. Upon the superannuation of Shri S.B. Pardeshi on 31/5/2016, the workload for Chemistry became available, and the petitioner was appointed as a full-time shikshan sevak vide appointment letter dated 15/6/2016. The management (respondent No.4) passed a resolution and forwarded the proposal for approval to the Deputy Director. However, the Deputy Director rejected the proposal by order dated 10/9/2019 on the ground that the proposal was not submitted within 30 days as required by the Government Resolution dated 5/7/2016. The petitioner amended the petition to challenge this order. The Court heard the parties and considered the facts. The Court noted that the petitioner had been working as a part-time teacher and was appointed as a full-time teacher following the selection procedure. The delay in seeking approval was not attributable to the petitioner but to the management. The Court held that the rejection on the ground of delay was not justified, as the management had followed the procedure and the petitioner was entitled to approval. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 10/9/2019, and directed the Deputy Director to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment as a full-time Assistant Teacher with effect from 15/6/2016 and regularize her services accordingly. The Court also directed that the petitioner be paid salary and other benefits from the date of approval.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Approval of Appointment - Delay in Seeking Approval - The Deputy Director of Education rejected approval on the ground that the proposal was not submitted within 30 days as per the Government Resolution dated 5/7/2016. The Court held that the delay in seeking approval cannot be a ground to deny approval when the management had followed the selection procedure and the petitioner was already working as a part-time teacher. The Court directed the Deputy Director to grant approval from the date of appointment, i.e., 15/6/2016, and regularize the services. (Paras 2-10) B) Education Law - Regularization of Services - Shikshan Sevak - The petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time shikshan sevak and later absorbed as a full-time shikshan sevak. The Court held that the petitioner's services as a full-time teacher should be regularized with effect from 15/6/2016, as the appointment was made following due procedure and the workload was available. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director of Education was justified in rejecting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a full-time Assistant Teacher on the ground that the proposal for approval was not submitted within the stipulated time?
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 10/9/2019 passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a full-time Assistant Teacher with effect from 15/6/2016 and regularize her services accordingly. The petitioner shall be paid salary and other benefits from the date of approval. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Law Points
- Approval of appointment
- Shikshan Sevak
- Full-time teacher
- Part-time teacher
- Delay in seeking approval
- Selection procedure
- Regularization
- Mandamus
