Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vidya Rambhaji Ambhore, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 22/24.12.2014 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad (respondent No.2), which rejected the proposal for her approval as a Shikshan Sevak (probationary teacher) in Dayanand Vidyalaya, Kaygaon, a school run by respondent No.3 institution. The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak by an appointment order dated 09.08.2012. The Education Officer rejected the proposal on the ground that the school had not obtained prior permission for filling up the post. The petitioner contended that the ground for rejection was not one of the grounds specified in the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2003, which governs the approval of Shikshan Sevaks. The respondents argued that the rejection was justified as the school had not followed the proper procedure. The court examined the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2003 and found that the grounds for rejection mentioned therein did not include the lack of prior permission for filling up the post. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2003. The court also directed that the petitioner be paid honorarium as per the rules from the date of her appointment, subject to the approval being granted. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Approval of Shikshan Sevak - Grounds for Rejection - The Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on the ground that the school had not obtained prior permission for filling up the post, which was not a ground specified in the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2003. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it was based on a ground not mentioned in the relevant Government Resolution. (Paras 5-6) B) Education Law - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Approval of Appointment - The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak within a period of four weeks, in accordance with the provisions of the MEPS Act, 1977 and the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2003. (Para 7) C) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Quashing of Order - The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22/24.12.2014 passed by the Education Officer, as it was based on an extraneous ground not supported by the relevant Government Resolution. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer (Secondary) was justified in rejecting the proposal for approval of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on the ground that the school had not obtained prior permission for filling up the post, and whether the petitioner is entitled to approval and honorarium.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22/24.12.2014 is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2003. The petitioner shall be paid honorarium as per the rules from the date of her appointment, subject to the approval being granted. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Education Officer cannot reject approval on grounds not specified in Government Resolution
- Approval of Shikshan Sevak must be considered within the framework of MEPS Act
- 1977
- Writ of certiorari lies against quasi-judicial orders of Education Officer
