Case Note & Summary
The judgment under consideration arose from a group of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging communications by the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, rejecting approval to appointments of teachers and staff in government-aided Ashram Schools run by Vimukta Jati Seva Samiti. The petitioners were employed as Assistant Teachers, Shikshan Sevaks and a Peon in various primary and secondary Ashram Schools in Nanded and Latur districts. The schools were stated to be 100% grant-in-aid. The respondent authorities included the State of Maharashtra, the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, and the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare. The petitions were heard together as they involved common issues. Rule was issued, and by consent of parties, the matters were heard finally. Judgment was reserved on 11 April 2022 and pronounced on 6 May 2022. The petitioner side argued before the High Court that respondent no.4 trust/society had made advance applications to respondent no.3 seeking either surplus teacher or permission to advertise vacancies, that advertisements were published in local newspapers, interviews conducted, and petitioners appointed against sanctioned vacant posts after possessing requisite qualifications. They contended that denial of approval was erroneous and against law. The respondent authorities, in their affidavits, contended that appointments were made during a ban on recruitment imposed by Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012, that prior permission to advertise vacancies was never granted, and that there were surplus employees of private schools who ought to have been absorbed first. In three later petitions, respondents further alleged that a surplus teacher had already been absorbed and no vacancy existed at the time of appointment, making the advertisement and appointment per se illegal. The petitioners in rejoinder asserted that they belonged to reserved categories, that applications for permission remained undecided, and that due selection procedure under M.E.P.S. Act and Rules was followed. The court, after hearing counsel, noted that the petitioners' counsel would argue that once recruitment procedure was followed, prior permission of the competent authority was immaterial. The court then indicated it would discuss the law on statutory requirements and referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory, (2005) 9 Scale 493. However, the available excerpt of the judgment ends at that point without recording the final analysis or operative order. Thus, the ultimate decision, ratio decidendi and directions are not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Prior Permission for Recruitment and Advertisement - Prior Approval Condition for Aided Schools - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act) and Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012 - The petitions challenged rejection of approval to appointments on grounds that management did not obtain prior permission to recruit or advertise vacancies and recruited during ban - Petitioners contended they applied for permission in advance and followed due procedure; respondents contended prior permission was mandatory and surplus teachers had to be absorbed; final decision not available in provided excerpt (Paras 3,5-6).
B) Service Law - Recruitment Ban - Appointments During Ban - Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012 - Appointments made during ban on recruitment imposed by Social Justice and Special Assistance Department were alleged to be illegal and against mandate of the G.R. - Management contended due procedure followed and G.R. not applicable due to sanctioned vacant posts and educational loss of students; final decision not available in provided excerpt (Paras 3,6,8).
C) Service Law - Absorption of Surplus Teachers - Obligation of Management - M.E.P.S. Act - Respondents contended management was bound to absorb surplus employees of private schools before advertising and filling vacant posts - In writ petitions 10204/2019, 10234/2019 and 10324/2019, respondents further alleged a surplus teacher was already absorbed and no vacancy existed on date of appointment making advertisement and appointment per se illegal - Petitioners denied and claimed sanctioned posts based on increased student strength; final decision not available in provided excerpt (Paras 6-8).
D) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Effect of Non-compliance with Prior Permission - M.E.P.S. Act - Petitioners argued once recruitment procedure was followed, prior permission of competent authority was immaterial; respondents argued appointments without prior permission to advertise were illegal and not binding - The court began discussing law on statutory requirements referring to Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory but final decision not available in provided excerpt (Paras 6,10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent no.3 was justified in rejecting approval to appointments on grounds of lack of prior permission to recruit and advertise vacancies, recruitment during Government Resolution ban dated 16.10.2012, and failure to absorb surplus teachers.
Law Points
- Prior permission of competent authority to recruit and advertise vacancies
- absorption of surplus teachers
- ban on recruitment under Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012
- approval of appointments in aided schools
- compliance with M.E.P.S. Act and Rules
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (05) 10
WRIT PETITION NO. 7736 OF 2018 along with WRIT PETITION NO. 10204 OF 2019, WRIT PETITION NO. 10234 OF 2019, WRIT PETITION NO. 7768 OF 2018, WRIT PETITION NO. 7789 OF 2018, WRIT PETITION NO. 10324 OF 2019
R.D. Dhanuka, S.G. Mehare
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh
Gajanan s/o. Maroti Meharkar, Ramakant s/o Kondiba Davkare, Giteshwar s/o Parshuram More, Ranjit s/o. Baburao Honwadajkar, Megha Prahladrao Kadam, Rajkumar s/o Shivajirao Kadam, Laxman s/o Raosaheb Hake, Sharda d/o Jaiwantrao Kale, Madhav Babarao Kawthekar, Anil s/o Sayasrao Gutte, Satyashila d/o Avinash Panpatte, Manohar s/o Gangaram Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistant Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32; The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Latur; Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Nanded; Vimukta Jati Seva Samiti, Vasantnagar (Kotgyal), Mukhed, Nanded; Secondary Ashram School, Vasant Nagar (Kotgyal), Mukhed, Nanded; Secondary Ashram School, Kamalewadi, Mukhed, Nanded; Primary Ashram School, Vasantnagar (Kotgyal), Mukhed, Nanded; Primary Ashram School, Sullali-Dongargaon, Jalkot, Latur; Primary Ashram School, Kamlevadi, Mukhed, Nanded
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging rejection of approval of appointments in government-aided Ashram Schools.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of impugned communications rejecting approval to their appointments and sought approval of their appointments.
Filing Reason
Respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare rejected proposals for approval on grounds that respondent no.4 had not taken prior permission to recruit or advertise vacancies and had appointed during ban under Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012.
Issues
Whether prior permission of the competent authority to recruit and advertise vacancies was mandatory before making appointments in aided private schools.
Whether appointments made during the ban on recruitment imposed by Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012 were illegal and void.
Whether the Management was required to absorb surplus teachers before advertising and filling vacant posts.
Whether respondent no.3 could decline approval to appointments where the selection procedure appeared to be followed but prior permission to advertise was not obtained.
Whether the denial of approval was justified where the Management claimed sanctioned vacant posts and due procedure under M.E.P.S. Act and Rules was followed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that respondent no.4 trust/society ran 100% grant-in-aid schools; after posts fell vacant, respondent no.4 made applications to respondent no.3 requesting surplus teacher or permission to advertise; advertisements were published in local newspapers; petitioners faced interviews and joined duties; they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts and possessed required qualifications; therefore approval should not be denied.
Respondents 1 to 3 contended that appointments were made against ban on recruitment imposed by G.R. dated 16.10.2012; management did not follow guidelines; there were surplus employees of private schools who should have been absorbed; prior permission to advertise was never granted; hence appointments were illegal and not binding.
In writ petitions 10204/2019, 10234/2019 and 10324/2019, respondents further contended that a surplus teacher was already absorbed on the vacant post and no vacancy existed on date of appointment, making the advertisement and appointment per se illegal.
Petitioners in rejoinder contended that due procedure was followed; applications for permission were made and remained undecided; they belonged to reserved categories and appointment was against sanctioned post based on increased student strength; G.Rs did not apply.
Judgment Excerpts
Respondent no. 2 has rejected the petitioners' proposal for approval for the following reasons. (1) Respondent no. 4 has not taken permission to recruit the petitioners, either from respondent no.2 or his senior Office. (2) No permission to advertise the vacancies was obtained by the Management either from respondent no.2 or his Senior Officer. (3) When the recruitment of the Staff was banned as per the Government Resolution of Social Justice and Special Assistance Department Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 16.10.2012, the Management appointed the petitioners against the mandate of the said G.R.
The guidelines issued in the said G.R. have not been followed by the management/ respondent no.4. There were several surplus employees of private schools. Respondents nos. 4 and 5 were bound to absorb the surplus teachers.
Since the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that once the recruitment procedure is followed, the prior permission of the competent Authority is immaterial, we would prefer to discuss the Law on the requirements of the statute.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad challenging the communications rejecting approval of their appointments. Rule was issued; learned AGP waived notice for respondents 1 to 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petitions were heard finally. Judgment reserved on 11 April 2022 and pronounced on 6 May 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act):
- Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012:
