Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Miraj Vidya Samiti (an educational institution) and Ms. Sarika Tammanna Magdum (a teacher), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29/11/2018 issued by Respondent No.2, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli. The impugned order refused approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak in the aided secondary school of Petitioner No.1. The facts reveal that upon the retirement of one Shri Sadanand Manohar Kale on 31/01/2017, a teacher's post became vacant. As per the roster, there was a backlog in the OBC category. Petitioner No.1 published an advertisement in the newspaper 'Daily Pratidhwani' on 20/04/2017 inviting applications for the post of Shikshan Sevak (BA B.Ed Hindi). Petitioner No.2, belonging to the Hindu Mali Caste (OBC Category) and holding BA (Hindi) and B.Ed (Hindi/Geography) qualifications, applied, appeared for an interview, and was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on probation for three years from 15/06/2017 to 16/06/2020. A proposal was submitted to Respondent No.2 seeking approval, but the Education Officer declined to accept the proposal on the ground that the appointment was made after a ban was imposed. The petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing and without considering the relevant material. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. Additionally, the Education Officer failed to consider the relevant material and the explanation submitted by the petitioners. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed Respondent No.2 to decide the proposal afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within four weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - The impugned order refusing approval was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, violating principles of natural justice. Held that the order is unsustainable on this ground alone (Para 4). B) Education Law - Appointment of Shikshan Sevak - Approval by Education Officer - The Education Officer failed to consider the relevant material and the explanation submitted by the petitioners. Held that the order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 29/11/2018 refusing approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Shikshan Sevak is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 29/11/2018 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the proposal afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within four weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition is allowed in these terms.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Consideration of relevant material
- Appointment of Shikshan Sevak
- Approval by Education Officer
