Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shri Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage (an individual) and Atpadi Education Society (a society running a 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 31 May 2019 passed 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 on an un-aided post in the secondary school run by Petitioner No.2. The appointment was made on 12 August 2014, after the commencement of the academic session. The Education Officer refused approval on the ground that the appointment was made after the academic session had started, citing provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules thereunder. The petitioners contended that the refusal was illegal because the post was un-aided, and the restrictions regarding prior approval and appointment before the academic session apply only to aided posts. They argued that for un-aided posts, the management has the autonomy to appoint teachers subject to qualifications, and approval cannot be denied on the ground of timing. The State respondents supported the impugned order. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, particularly Sections 5 and 7, and the distinction between aided and un-aided posts. It held that the requirement of prior approval and appointment before the academic session is applicable only to aided posts. For un-aided posts, the management can appoint teachers at any time, and the Education Officer is bound to grant approval if the candidate possesses the requisite qualifications and the post is sanctioned. The Court found that the impugned order was based on a misinterpretation of the law and was arbitrary. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31 May 2019 and directed Respondent No.2 to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher on the un-aided post with effect from 12 August 2014, with all consequential service benefits. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Appointment on Un-aided Post - Approval - Sections 5 and 7 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Education Officer refused approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher on an un-aided post on the ground that the appointment was made after the commencement of the academic session. The Court held that the provisions of the Act and Rules regarding prior approval and appointment before the academic session apply only to aided posts, not to un-aided posts. The refusal was quashed and the Education Officer was directed to grant approval with consequential benefits. (Paras 1-28) B) Education Law - Un-aided Post - Distinction from Aided Post - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Court distinguished between aided and un-aided posts, noting that the requirement of prior approval and appointment before the academic session is applicable only to aided posts. For un-aided posts, the management has the freedom to appoint teachers subject to qualifications, and approval cannot be denied on the ground of timing. (Paras 10-20) C) Education Law - Approval of Appointment - Delay - The Court observed that the Education Officer's order was based on a misinterpretation of the law and was arbitrary. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 31.5.2019 was quashed and set aside. (Paras 21-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer can refuse approval to the appointment of an Assistant Teacher on an un-aided post on the ground that the appointment was made after the commencement of the academic session, and whether such refusal is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.5.2019 passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Assistant Teacher on the un-aided post with effect from 12.8.2014, with all consequential service benefits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Approval of appointment on un-aided post
- Appointment after commencement of academic session
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
