Case Note & Summary
The Petitioners, Miraj Vidya Samiti (an educational institution) and Mrs. Sunita Anil Mali (the appointee), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29/11/2018 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, refusing approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak in the aided secondary school of Petitioner No.1. The facts reveal that one Shri Vasantrao Bhanudas Salunkhe, a teacher in the school, retired on 30/06/2016, creating a vacancy. As per the roster, there was a backlog in the OBC category. Petitioner No.1 published an advertisement in the newspaper 'Daily Pratidhwani' on 15/05/2016 inviting applications for the post of Shikshan Sevak (B.A. B.Ed. Marathi). Petitioner No.2, belonging to the Hindu Mali Caste (OBC category) and holding MA (Marathi) and B.Ed. (Marathi/Geography) qualifications, applied and was appointed on probation for 3 years from 01/07/2016 to 30/06/2019. The appointment was made from the OBC category. The Education Officer refused approval on the ground that the advertisement did not specify the category of the post. The Petitioners contended that the advertisement was for a backlog OBC vacancy and that the appointment was in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules thereunder. The Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Education Officer's refusal was not justified. The Court noted that the advertisement was for a backlog OBC vacancy and that the appointment was made after following due procedure. The Court directed the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak for 3 years w.e.f. 15.6.2017 (as prayed) and to release the grant-in-aid for payment of monthly honorarium from the said date, together with arrears. The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Refusal of Approval - The Petitioners challenged the order dated 29/11/2018 refusing approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak. The Court held that the Education Officer's refusal was not justified as the advertisement was for a backlog OBC vacancy and the appointment was made in accordance with the rules. The Court directed the Education Officer to grant approval and release grant-in-aid. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer was justified in refusing approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak on the ground that the advertisement did not specify the category of the post, and whether the Petitioners are entitled to a direction for grant of approval and release of grant-in-aid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29/11/2018 passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak for 3 years w.e.f. 15.6.2017 and to release the grant-in-aid for payment of monthly honorarium from the said date, together with arrears. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Approval of appointment of Shikshan Sevak
- Backlog vacancy in OBC category
- Grant-in-aid for aided schools
