Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti through its President and General Secretary, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging an order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded (respondent No.3). The impugned order granted approval to the appointment of respondent No.5, Kondba s/o. Namdeo Sandve, as Headmaster of Adarsh Vidyalaya, Manatha. The proposal for the appointment was submitted by respondent No.6, Subhashram s/o. Ghanshyam Tarte, who claimed to be the General Secretary of the Samiti. The petitioners contended that respondent No.6 was not the validly elected General Secretary and that the management committee represented by the petitioners was the only legitimate body. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the approval order and directions to the respondents not to accept or consider any proposals from respondent No.6. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Education Officers, opposed the petition. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that their committee was the validly constituted management committee at the time the proposal was made. The court noted that the dispute regarding the management of the institution was pending before the appropriate authorities and that the impugned order was passed based on a proposal from a person who was recognized as the General Secretary at that time. The court held that in the absence of clear proof of illegality or lack of jurisdiction, the writ of certiorari could not be issued. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Appointment of Headmaster - Approval by Education Officer - The petitioner, claiming to be the management committee of the school, challenged the approval granted to respondent No.5 as Headmaster. The court examined whether the proposal for appointment was submitted by a validly constituted management committee. Held that the petitioner failed to establish that its committee was the validly constituted body at the time of the proposal, and thus the approval could not be interfered with. (Paras 1-5) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Quashing of Administrative Order - The court considered the scope of certiorari to quash an order granting approval. Held that since the petitioner did not demonstrate a clear right or that the impugned order was without jurisdiction or patently illegal, the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 12.11.2014 granting approval to the appointment of respondent No.5 as Headmaster, based on a proposal submitted by respondent No.6, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari
- Quashing of administrative order
- Approval of appointment
- Management committee dispute
- Locus standi of rival committee
