Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Jaibharat Mahila Sewa Sanstha (a trust running a school), its school Ujjawal Uccha Prathamik Shala, and Ku. Sangita Ramchandra Kalamkar (the appointee), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18/09/2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division. By that order, the Deputy Director reviewed and revoked the earlier order dated 12/08/2014 which had granted permission to the appointment of petitioner No.3 on a non-teaching post (Peon) in the school. The background facts are that in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), the petitioner-Sanstha vide communication dated 12/11/2013 and reminder dated 03/01/2014 sought to ascertain from the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur whether any suitable person was available on the list of surplus persons for the post of Peon. The Education Officer did not respond. Consequently, after following the procedure under Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules, the Sanstha appointed petitioner No.3 by order dated 30/03/2014. The Education Officer granted permission on 12/08/2014. However, after four years, the Deputy Director, on his own motion, reviewed and revoked that permission. The legal issues were whether the Deputy Director had the power to review the permission after such a long period and whether the appointment was valid. The petitioners argued that the Deputy Director had no statutory power of review and that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. The respondents contended that the appointment was made without following the proper procedure. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 5(1) proviso and Rule 9, noting that the Education Officer had failed to respond to the inquiry, and thus the management was entitled to proceed with the appointment. The court held that the Deputy Director had no authority to review the order dated 12/08/2014 after four years, as there is no provision for review under the MEPS Act or Rules. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. Rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Review Power - Absence of Statutory Authority - Deputy Director of Education cannot review or revoke an order granting permission for appointment after four years without any provision under the MEPS Act or Rules - Held that the order dated 18/09/2018 revoking permission was without jurisdiction and unsustainable (Paras 7-10). B) Education Law - Appointment of Non-Teaching Staff - Procedure under Section 5(1) Proviso and Rule 9 - Where Education Officer fails to respond to inquiry regarding surplus persons, the management may proceed to appoint - Held that the appointment of petitioner No.3 was valid as the Education Officer did not respond (Paras 4-6). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - High Court can interfere with orders passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice - Held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed (Paras 1, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director of Education had the power to review and revoke the permission granted for appointment of a non-teaching staff after a period of four years, without any statutory authority and without affording opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 18/09/2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Review power
- Limitation
- Natural justice
- Section 5 MEPS Act
- Rule 9 MEPS Rules
- Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India
