Case Note & Summary
The case involves six writ petitions filed by teachers and a librarian (first petitioners) and the educational institution (second petitioner) challenging an order dated 27 December 2016 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, declining to approve their appointments. The petitioners were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks (teachers) and Librarian in a government-recognized and aided private secondary school run by the second petitioner. Three teachers were appointed in reserved posts, two teachers in open categories, and the librarian in open category. Before the appointments, the institution had informed the Education Officer about the vacant posts and sought permission, but the Education Officer did not respond. The Education Officer later refused approval on the ground that the school had insufficient number of students to justify the posts and that there was a policy not to approve appointments in such cases. The petitioners argued that the Act and Rules do not prescribe any such condition and that the Education Officer must consider the application on its merits. The Court held that the refusal was not sustainable as the grounds were not based on any statutory provision. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the applications for approval within four weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Court also noted that the Education Officer cannot sit over the application indefinitely and then refuse on extraneous grounds.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Approval of Appointment - Shikshan Sevak and Librarian - Sections 5 and 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Education Officer refused to approve appointments of teachers and librarian on the ground that the school had insufficient students and that there was a policy not to approve appointments in such cases. The Court held that the Act and Rules do not prescribe any such condition, and the Education Officer must consider the application on its merits. The refusal was set aside and the Education Officer was directed to reconsider the applications. (Paras 2-8)
B) Education Law - Policy of Education Officer - Validity - The Education Officer's policy of not approving appointments due to insufficient number of students is not a valid ground under the Act or Rules. The Court held that such a policy cannot override the statutory provisions. (Paras 5-8)
C) Education Law - Prior Approval - Requirement - The Court noted that the appointments were made after informing the Education Officer about vacancies and seeking permission, but the Education Officer did not respond. The Court held that the Education Officer cannot sit over the application indefinitely and then refuse on extraneous grounds. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer can refuse to approve appointments of teachers and librarian in an aided school on the ground that the school has insufficient number of students to justify the posts, and whether such refusal is valid under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules thereunder.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 27 December 2016, and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the applications for approval within four weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Approval of appointment cannot be denied on grounds not specified in the Act or Rules
- Education Officer must consider application on its merits
- Policy of not approving appointments due to insufficient students is not a valid ground under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 124
Writ Petition No.1312 of 2017 with Writ Petition Nos.1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1319 of 2017
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar a/w. Mr. Sagar Mane for the Petitioners, Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondents
Ms. Pallavi Shashikant Dhotre And Anr. (and others in connected petitions)
The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Education Officer declining to approve appointments of teachers and librarian.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned order and direction to the Education Officer to approve their appointments.
Filing Reason
The Education Officer refused to approve the appointments on the ground of insufficient number of students and a policy not to approve appointments in such cases.
Previous Decisions
The Education Officer passed an order on 27 December 2016 declining approval.
Issues
Whether the Education Officer can refuse to approve appointments on the ground of insufficient number of students?
Whether the Education Officer's policy of not approving appointments due to insufficient students is valid under the Act and Rules?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Act and Rules do not prescribe any condition regarding the number of students for approval of appointments.
The petitioners submitted that the Education Officer had not responded to their request for permission before appointments were made.
The respondents argued that the school had insufficient students to justify the posts and that there was a policy not to approve appointments in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi
The Education Officer cannot refuse approval of appointments on grounds not prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 or the Rules thereunder. The policy of not approving appointments due to insufficient number of students is not a valid ground and cannot override statutory provisions.
Judgment Excerpts
The subejct matter of challenge in these six petitions is an order (passed on similar lines in each of these six cases) by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, on 27 December 2016, declining to approve the appointments of five teachers as Shikshan Sevaks and one Librarian concerned in these petitions.
It is not in dispute that before the appointments were made by the second Petitioner Education Institute, the second Petitioner had informed the Education Officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur, about vacant posts in the particular categories, seeking the latter's permission for the appointments.
The Education Officer, however, did not respond to the request of the second Petitioner for permission.
The impugned order, as we have noted above, is based on the ground that the school had insufficient number of students to justify the posts and that there was a policy not to approve appointments in such cases.
The Act and the Rules do not prescribe any such condition for approval of appointments.
The Education Officer cannot sit over the application for permission indefinitely and then refuse to approve the appointments on grounds which are not based on any statutory provision.
In the premises, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Education Officer is directed to reconsider the applications for approval of the appointments of the first petitioners in each of these petitions within four weeks from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Procedural History
The Education Officer passed an order on 27 December 2016 declining to approve the appointments. The petitioners filed six writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the order. The Court heard the matter and delivered an oral judgment on 27 June 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: 5, 7
