Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by a common order dated 9 September 2021, disposed of two writ petitions concerning rejection of approval to appointments of Shikshan Sevaks in a private aided school. The petitioners, one appointed on 15 June 2016 and the other on 1 August 2014, challenged orders of the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur, rejecting proposals submitted by the management for approval of their appointments. The school was managed by Walwa Education Society and Raghunath New English School and Junior College. In Writ Petition No.5320 of 2019, the first petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 15 June 2016 after following due procedure. The management submitted a proposal for approval on the same day. The Deputy Director rejected the proposal by letter dated 4 September 2019 on four grounds: advertisement not published in two newspapers and newspaper cuttings not submitted; no permission for advertisement obtained; no caste certificate and caste validity certificate; and dispute in the management. In Writ Petition No.3496 of 2021, the second petitioner was appointed on 1 August 2014, and the management submitted proposal on 15 June 2016. The Deputy Director rejected that proposal by order dated 4 September 2019 on three grounds: no permission for advertisement; advertisement not published in two newspapers; and no caste certificate and caste validity certificate. The petitioners contended that the advertisement was published in Maharashtra Times, a widely circulated newspaper, satisfying Rule 9(8) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. They submitted caste certificates which were later validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 8 May 2019, and the delay was not attributable to them. They also argued that internal management disputes had been withdrawn and, in any event, could not be a ground for rejecting approval, relying on Narsinha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Dr.Ishrat Ullah Khan. The State argued that the petitioners had not complied with the substituted Rule 9(8) requiring notification to Employment Exchange and other bodies, but the court noted this ground was not raised in the impugned orders. The court held that the advertisement in Maharashtra Times complied with Rule 9(8). The caste validity certificate had been issued after validation, and the Deputy Director could not reject approval on that ground since the delay was not the petitioner's fault. The court further held that internal management disputes could not be considered by the Education Officer while deciding approval, following its earlier judgments. The State's additional ground of non-notification was not allowed as it was not part of the impugned order. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders (mentioned as dated 15 May 2017 and 4 September 2018) and directed the Deputy Director to grant approval to the appointments with effect from the respective dates of initial appointment within four weeks. It also directed release of grant-in-aid within six weeks and inclusion of names in Salarth ID within four weeks. The writ petitions were allowed; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Advertisement Compliance - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 Rule 9(8) - The management published advertisement in Maharashtra Times, a newspaper with wide circulation in Maharashtra, satisfying the requirement of issuing advertisement; rejection on ground that advertisement was not in two newspapers or lacked prior permission was contrary to communication dated 7 April 2019 and Rule 9(8) - Held that the advertisement complied with Rule 9(8) and the ground was untenable (Paras 7-9, 15). B) Service Law - Caste Validity Certificate - Delay Not Attributable to Teacher - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 Rule 9(8) - Petitioner submitted caste certificate issued by competent authority, and Caste Scrutiny Committee validated it on 8 May 2019; delay in validation was not attributable to petitioner, so rejection on ground of absence of caste validity certificate was invalid - Held that Deputy Director could not reject approval on that ground (Paras 5, 15). C) Service Law - Management Dispute - Inter-se Dispute Not Ground for Rejection - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 Rule 9(8) - Following Narsinha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Dr.Ishrat Ullah Khan, Education Officer is not required to examine inter-se management disputes; complaints had been withdrawn; rejection on this ground was contrary to law - Held that internal management dispute cannot be a ground for refusing approval (Paras 6, 13-14). D) Service Law - Scope of Grounds - Grounds Not Raised in Impugned Order - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 Rule 9(8) - State argued petitioner did not notify Employment Exchange, District Associate Welfare Officer and backward class organizations under substituted Rule 9(8) w.e.f 22 June 2017, but this ground was not in impugned order and cannot be urged across bar - Held that approval cannot be rejected on grounds not raised in the impugned order (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director of Education was justified in rejecting proposals for approval of appointments of Shikshan Sevaks on grounds of advertisement not published in two newspapers, lack of prior permission for advertisement, absence of caste validity certificate, and internal management dispute
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 15 May 2017 and 4 September 2018 were quashed and set aside in both writ petitions. The Deputy Director of Education was directed to grant approval to the appointments of both petitioners as Shikshan Sevak with effect from 15 June 2016 and 1 August 2014 respectively within four weeks from communication of the order. The Deputy Director was also directed to release grant-in-aid in respect of such appointments within six weeks from grant of approval and to include the names of both petitioners in Salarth ID within four weeks from grant of approval. Both writ petitions were allowed; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rule 9(8) of MEPS Rules permits advertisement in newspaper with wide circulation
- prior permission for advertisement not required after 2 May 2012
- inter-se management dispute cannot be ground for rejecting approval
- delay in obtaining caste validity certificate attributable to Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot prejudice teacher
- grounds not raised in impugned order cannot be urged later
