Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two civil writ petitions filed by Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad and Naresh Hanmant Bhise against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petitioners were appointed as Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teachers) in private aided schools managed by respondent nos. 4 and 5. The Education Officer (Secondary) rejected the proposal for approval of their appointments on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the qualification of having passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as required by the advertisement and Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010. The petitioners challenged this rejection before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 and found that it only prescribes the procedure for appointment of Shikshan Sevak and does not lay down any qualification requirement. The court held that the Education Officer's rejection was unsustainable as the Government Resolution does not prescribe any qualification for Shikshan Sevak posts. The court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposals for approval in light of the Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Teachers - Approval - Shikshan Sevak Scheme - Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 - The Education Officer rejected approval for appointment of petitioners as Assistant Teachers on the ground that they did not possess the qualification of having passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as per the advertisement and Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010. The Court held that the Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 does not prescribe any qualification for Shikshan Sevak posts and the rejection was unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Shikshan Sevak - Qualification - Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 - The Court examined the Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 and found that it only prescribes the procedure for appointment of Shikshan Sevak and does not lay down any qualification requirement. The Education Officer's reliance on the advertisement which required TET qualification was misplaced as the advertisement could not override the Government Resolution. (Paras 5-10) C) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Education Officer - Jurisdiction - The Education Officer's power to grant approval is limited to verifying whether the appointment is in accordance with the rules and Government Resolutions. The Education Officer cannot impose additional qualifications not prescribed by the Government Resolution. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer's rejection of approval for appointment of petitioners as Assistant Teachers on the ground that they were not qualified as per the advertisement and Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders passed by the Education Officer, and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposals for approval of appointment of the petitioners in light of the Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Government Resolution dated 05.05.2010
- Shikshan Sevak Scheme
- approval of appointment
- qualification requirements
- private aided schools
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
