Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Vaishali Raoso Ghadage (an individual teacher) and Atpadi Education Society (a society running an un-aided secondary school), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. They challenged an order dated 23.07.2018 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli (Respondent No.2), which refused to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as an Assistant Teacher in the school run by Petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 was appointed on 31.07.2017. The Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval on the ground that the petitioner No.1 did not possess the requisite qualification of D.Ed. (Diploma in Education) and that the appointment was not made through the proper channel. The petitioners contended that the order was passed without affording them any opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice. They also argued that the school is an un-aided school and that the petitioner No.1 possessed a B.Ed. degree, which is a higher qualification than D.Ed., and thus she was eligible. The court examined the impugned order and found that it was a cryptic order passed without any application of mind. The court noted that the Education Officer did not consider the fact that the school is un-aided and that the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules made thereunder apply. The court also observed that the order was passed without granting any hearing to the petitioners, which is a clear violation of natural justice. The court held that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal for approval afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and to pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c).
Headnote
A) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Natural Justice - The Education Officer refused approval without granting hearing to the petitioners, violating principles of natural justice. Held that the order is unsustainable as it was passed ex-parte without any opportunity of hearing (Paras 4-6). B) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Un-Aided School - The Education Officer failed to consider that the school is un-aided and that the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 apply. Held that the order is vitiated due to non-application of mind (Paras 7-10). C) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Eligibility - The Education Officer rejected approval on grounds of petitioner not possessing D.Ed. degree, but the petitioner possessed B.Ed. degree which is a higher qualification. Held that the rejection was erroneous (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2018 is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli is directed to reconsider the proposal for approval of appointment of Petitioner No.1 afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and to pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Approval of appointment
- Un-aided school
- Teacher eligibility
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Article 226
- Article 227
