Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhikku Mahapanth, was appointed as Head Master of Bhadant Dhammakirti Vidyalaya, Nagpur, on 20 September 1990 by the Management (respondent no.3). The appointment was made because no other candidate with the required teaching experience as per Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 was available within the school. The petitioner was duly qualified at the relevant time. However, on 12 July 1995, the Deputy Director of Education (respondent no.1) issued a communication to the Management stating that the appointment was de hors the procedure prescribed in Rules 3(1)(b), 3(2) and 3(5) of the 1981 Rules, and therefore liable to be cancelled under Rule 3(6). The petitioner challenged this communication by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner argued that since he was not from the teaching staff of the school, sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, which deals with appointment from within the school, was not attracted. Similarly, sub-rule (5), which requires consultation with the Education Officer, was also not applicable. The respondents (State authorities) supported the impugned communication. The Court, after hearing both sides, examined the relevant provisions. It noted that Rule 3(1)(b) permits appointment of a person from outside the school if no suitable candidate is available within the school. Since the petitioner was an external candidate, sub-rules (2) and (5) did not apply. The Court held that the impugned communication was bad in law and could not be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the communication dated 12 July 1995 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner's appointment as valid. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Head Master - Rule 3(1)(b), 3(2), 3(5), 3(6) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Validity of appointment from outside the school - The petitioner was appointed as Head Master on 20.9.1990 by the Management as no other candidate with required teaching experience was available in the school. The Deputy Director of Education by communication dated 12.7.1995 directed cancellation of the appointment on the ground that it was de hors the procedure prescribed in Rules 3(1)(b), 3(2) and 3(5). The Court held that since the petitioner was not from the teaching staff of the school, sub-rules (2) and (5) were not attracted, and the appointment was valid. The impugned communication was quashed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master made by the Management from outside the school is valid under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and whether the impugned communication directing cancellation of such appointment is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 12.7.1995 is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master as valid. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment of Head Master from outside the school is permissible under Rule 3(1)(b) if no qualified candidate is available within the school
- Rule 3(2) and 3(5) do not apply to external candidates
- Rule 3(6) cannot be invoked to cancel such appointment
