Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Refusal of Approval to Teacher Appointment — Education Officer Directed to Grant Approval and Release Salary. Petitioner possessing B.Sc. B.Ed. is a trained teacher under Rule 2(k) of MEPS Rules; refusal on ground of management dispute not sustainable.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 26
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Gangadhar Baburao Shere, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, refusing to grant approval to his appointment as a teacher in Smt. Rukminimath Sure Girl's Vidyalaya, Nagalgaon. The petitioner possessed B.Sc. B.Ed. qualifications, making him a trained teacher under Rule 2(k) of the MEPS Rules. Due to the retirement of a science teacher on 31.12.2010, a vacancy arose. The school management, despite internal disputes, sought permission from the Education Officer on 06.01.2011 to fill the vacancy. The Education Officer refused approval citing the management dispute. The court held that the refusal was not justified as the petitioner was duly appointed and the dispute did not affect his appointment. The court directed the Education Officer to grant approval and release salary grants.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Teacher Appointment - Approval - Refusal by Education Officer - Petitioner possessing B.Sc. B.Ed. qualification is a trained teacher under Rule 2(k) of MEPS Rules - Education Officer refused approval on grounds of pending management dispute - Held that the refusal was not justified as the petitioner was duly appointed by the management and the dispute did not affect his appointment - Direction to grant approval and release salary (Paras 3-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Education Officer's refusal to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher is sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2015 is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and release the salary grants within four weeks.

Law Points

  • MEPS Rules
  • Rule 2(k)
  • trained teacher
  • approval of appointment
  • salary grants
  • education officer's duty
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 19

WRIT PETITION NO.11613 OF 2015

2016-03-04

S.S.SHINDE, P.R.BORA

Mr. V.D.Gunale for Petitioner, Mr. D.R.Kale AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. V.G.Kodale for Respondent No.3

Gangadhar Baburao Shere

The State of Maharashtra, The Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla Parishad, Latur, The headmistress, Smt. Rukminimath Sure Girl's Vidyalaya, Nagalgaon

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging refusal of approval to appointment of teacher.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 08.09.2015 refusing approval and direction to grant approval and release salary grants.

Filing Reason

Education Officer refused to grant approval to petitioner's appointment as teacher citing management dispute.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 08.09.2015 by Education Officer refusing approval.

Issues

Whether the Education Officer's refusal to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he is a trained teacher under Rule 2(k) of MEPS Rules and was appointed against a vacant post; refusal on ground of management dispute is unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Education Officer cannot refuse approval to a teacher's appointment solely on the ground of a management dispute when the teacher is qualified and appointed against a vacant post.

Judgment Excerpts

This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 08.09.2015 issued by respondent no. 2 Education Officer, thereby refusing approval to the appointment of petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is possessing the educational qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed., therefore, he is trained candidate within the meaning of Rule 2 [k] of the MEPS Rules.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed writ petition on 08.09.2015 challenging Education Officer's order; heard on 01.03.2016 and pronounced on 04.03.2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules): Rule 2(k)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Directors of Housing Society in Cheque Dishonour Case — No Vicarious Liability Without Specific Role in Day-to-Day Affairs. Directors of a cooperative housing society cannot be held vicariously liable under Sec...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Abatement and Condonation of Delay in Second Appeal — No Sufficient Cause Shown for 5-Year Delay in Filing Application After Dismissal of Appeal for Default.