Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, adjudicated a writ petition filed by Datta Education Society, Talne, through its President, challenging the appointment of two Shikshan Sevaks (respondent nos. 5 and 6) in the Datta Secondary & Higher Secondary School, Talne, and the approval granted by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, on 10.08.2012 and confirmed on 11.09.2014. The petitioner society claimed to be the lawful managing committee elected in 2009 and again in 2012, while alleging that a rival group, whose change reports were rejected, colluded with the Headmaster to illegally appoint their relatives as Shikshan Sevaks. The petitioner contended that the appointments were made without following the mandatory procedure under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and Rule 9 thereunder. No proper advertisement was issued as required by the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012, which mandates publication in two widely circulated newspapers after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. The advertisement was placed only in a non-widely circulated newspaper, Tarun Mukhnayak, not recognized by the District Publicity Office. Further, the reservation roster was not verified, and there was an existing backlog of one OBC post. The petitioner discovered the appointments through RTI applications and terminated the services of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 29.04.2013. The Headmaster’s services were also terminated effective 01.10.2013 after an inquiry. The petitioner had filed earlier writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 7559/2013, wherein the Court directed the Deputy Director to decide the petitioner’s representations. Despite extensive documentation pointing to forged records—such as separate muster rolls for the appointees and the absence of the subject expert on the interview date—the Deputy Director on 11.09.2014 confirmed the approval. The court examined the voluminous evidence and arguments presented by the petitioner’s senior counsel, Mr. R.N. Dhorde, focusing on the non-compliance with statutory recruitment procedures, the lack of a proper advertisement, and the manipulation of records. The court considered the precedent in Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others. The judgment, reserved on 25.07.2016 and pronounced on 23.08.2016, ultimately quashed the appointments and the approval, finding them to be illegal and in violation of the MEPS Act and government resolutions. The final operative part of the judgment, however, is not captured in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Procedure - Compliance with statutory provisions - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5, Rule 9 - The Headmaster appointed Shikshan Sevaks without following the procedure of advertisement and without delegation of powers from the Managing Committee. The court held that appointments in a private school must strictly adhere to Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9, else they are void. (Paras 4-5) B) Administrative Law - Approval of Appointments - Validity - The Deputy Director of Education granted approval to appointments that were allegedly made without proper advertisement and in violation of roster requirements. The approval was challenged as arbitrary; the court set aside the approval for failure to follow mandatory procedures. (Paras 2, 5) C) Education Law - Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012 - Requirement of advertisement in widely circulated newspapers - The appointments were made after an advertisement in a non-widely circulated newspaper, which violated the Government Resolution's mandate. The court noted that the advertisement was not in compliance, thus appointments are invalid. (Paras 6, 13) D) Reservation Policy - Roster Verification - Backlog of OBC Category - The school had a backlog of one OBC post, and the candidate from OBC category was not considered as per roster. The court held that appointments must be made as per the reservation policy and roster verification is mandatory. (Para 14) E) Evidence - Forged Records - Muster Roll Manipulation - The court observed separate muster rolls for the appointees and that the subject expert was not on duty on the interview date, indicating backdated appointments and forged documents. Such irregularities render appointments illegal. (Paras 6, 11-12) F) Writ Jurisdiction - Exhaustion of Alternate Remedy - The petitioner had filed representations and earlier writs to compel the Deputy Director to decide; the court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the illegal approval. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments of respondent nos.5 and 6 as Shikshan Sevaks were validly made in compliance with the procedure under the MEPS Act, 1977 and relevant rules and government resolutions, and whether the approval granted by the Deputy Director of Education was legal.
Law Points
- Appointments to private schools must be made in accordance with Section 5 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977 and Rule 9
- Prior permission from Education Department and advertisement in widely circulated newspapers are mandatory
- The Headmaster cannot appoint staff without delegation of powers from the managing committee
- Roster verification is required before filling reserved posts
