Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an assistant teacher qualified with B.A., B.Ed., belonging to Scheduled Caste (Mahar) category, challenged the order dated 20 August 2018 passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Latur, refusing to grant approval to her appointment as Shikshan Sevak in respondent no. 4 school. She sought a direction for approval and release of salary from 23 October 2015. The vacancy arose due to retirement of an assistant teacher on 30 September 2015. On 3 October 2015 the school addressed a letter to the Education Officer seeking permission to issue advertisement for the vacant SC category post. Having received no response, the school issued an advertisement on 10 October 2015 and appointed the petitioner on 23 October 2015 subject to approval by the Education Officer. The school submitted a proposal for approval on 14 August 2018, but the Education Officer rejected it on 20 August 2018, citing disregard of eligibility criteria, availability of 108 surplus teachers, and non-compliance with Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioner argued that since the Education Officer did not respond to the letter seeking permission, there was no violation of Section 5(1), and deemed permission should be inferred. She relied on several decisions of the High Court. The State submitted that the advertisement did not mention the subject, no prior permission was obtained, 108 surplus teachers were available on the date of advertisement, and a surplus teacher sent was not allowed to join. The management and school supported the petitioner, contending there was no ban on appointment because she was an English teacher belonging to SC category, and the Education Officer neither furnished the list of surplus teachers nor responded to the communication. The Court analysed Section 5(1) and its proviso, which requires the management to ascertain from the Education Officer whether any suitable person is available on the list of surplus persons maintained by him before filling the vacancy. The Court noted that the school had not produced any document showing such ascertainment. The provided text ends before the final decision and operative directions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Approval of Appointment of Shikshan Sevak - Section 5(1) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Management's obligation to fill permanent vacancy and to ascertain availability of surplus teachers from Education Officer before filling vacancy - The petitioner, a B.A., B.Ed. qualified Scheduled Caste (Mahar) candidate, was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 23 October 2015 without prior permission as Education Officer did not respond to letter dated 3 October 2015; Education Officer rejected approval on 20 August 2018 citing non-compliance with Section 5(1) and availability of 108 surplus teachers; respondent school did not produce any document showing ascertainment from Education Officer about surplus teachers - The court analysed the proviso to Section 5(1) and noted that management must ascertain from Education Officer whether any suitable person is available on the list of surplus persons maintained by him before filling vacancy (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer's order dated 20 August 2018 rejecting approval to petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak is valid under Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and whether non-response to letter seeking permission to advertise amounts to deemed permission.
Law Points
- Prior permission not deemed granted by mere non-response
- Section 5(1) MEPS Act requires ascertainment of surplus teachers before filling vacancy
- management must comply with statutory procedure
- approval can be refused for non-compliance with eligibility and surplus availability
