Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shailendra Prakashchandra Darda, was appointed as Laboratory Attendant in Abhyankar Girls' School & Junior College, Yeotmal, run by the Women's Education Society. The post was reserved for project affected candidates. The school committee, headed by the petitioner's uncle, Amarchand Pannalal Darda, selected and appointed the petitioner without following the proper procedure. The Collector had forwarded a list of eligible project affected candidates, which did not include the petitioner. The Director and Deputy Director of Education refused to approve the appointment. The petitioner challenged this refusal by filing a writ petition. The court found that the appointment was vitiated by nepotism and procedural irregularities. The school committee had ignored the list from the Collector and appointed the petitioner, who was not a project affected person. The court held that the refusal of approval was justified and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment in Aided School - Refusal of Approval - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attendant by a school committee headed by his uncle, without following the procedure of obtaining candidates from the Collector's list for project affected category. The Director and Deputy Director of Education refused approval. The court held that the appointment was vitiated by nepotism and procedural irregularities, and the refusal of approval was justified. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Reservation - Project Affected Category - The post was reserved for project affected candidates. The Collector forwarded a list of eligible candidates, which did not include the petitioner. The school committee ignored that list and appointed the petitioner, who was not a project affected person. The court held that the appointment was illegal and contrary to the reservation policy. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Nepotism - Selection Committee - The School Committee was headed by the petitioner's uncle, who selected and appointed his nephew. The court held that such nepotism vitiates the selection process and the appointment cannot be approved. (Paras 2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal of approval by the Director and Deputy Director of Education to the appointment of the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant was justified on grounds of nepotism and procedural irregularities.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The court held that the refusal of approval by the Director and Deputy Director of Education was justified as the appointment was vitiated by nepotism and procedural irregularities.
Law Points
- Appointment in aided school must follow statutory rules and be made from eligible candidates sponsored by employment exchange or collector for reserved category
- Nepotism in selection by committee headed by relative of candidate vitiates appointment
- Approval of appointment by education authorities is mandatory and can be refused if appointment is illegal or irregular
