Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Gajanan Shahu Keripale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23rd January 2017 passed by the Education Officer (Respondent No. 5) rejecting the proposal for individual approval to his appointment as Shikshan Sevak at Aalas Bubnal High School (Respondent No. 7). The petitioner was B.A.D.Ed. qualified. The respondent No. 6 educational institution had made the proposal. The Education Officer rejected it on the ground that the staff schedule for the academic year 2013-2014 was sanctioned in September 2014, after the academic year had ended, and that the appointment was not in accordance with the rules. The petitioner contended that the delay in sanctioning the staff schedule was not his fault and that the rejection was arbitrary. The court observed that the Education Officer had not applied his mind to the fact that the staff schedule was sanctioned after the academic year, which was beyond the control of the petitioner and the school. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal within four weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the school. The court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue as Shikshan Sevak until the fresh decision is taken.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Shikshan Sevak - Individual Approval - Rejection of Proposal - The petitioner challenged the order of the Education Officer rejecting his appointment proposal. The court held that the Education Officer failed to apply his mind and did not consider that the staff schedule was sanctioned after the academic year, which was beyond the control of the petitioner and the school. The impugned order was set aside and the Education Officer was directed to reconsider the proposal within four weeks. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Staff Schedule - Sanction after Academic Year - The court noted that the staff schedule for 2013-2014 was sanctioned in September 2014, after the academic year had ended. This delay was not attributable to the petitioner or the school. The court held that the rejection based on such delay was unsustainable. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 23rd January, 2017 rejecting the proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak is legal, valid and proper.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 23rd January 2017 is set aside. The Respondent No. 5 Education Officer is directed to reconsider the proposal for individual approval of the petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak within four weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the school. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Shikshan Sevak until the fresh decision is taken.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Rule 21
- Government Resolutions
- Staff Schedule
- Individual Approval
- Shikshan Sevak
