Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Education Officer's Order Refusing Approval to Shikshan Sevak Appointment. Technical Lapses in Recruitment Process Do Not Invalidate Selection of Qualified Candidate.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 1309
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Nayeem Akhtar Gouse Mohiuddin Sherpyade, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 26th September 2023 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, refusing to grant approval to his appointment as Shikshan Sevak at New Bharat Urdu High School, Anjanwel. The petitioner was appointed on 1st October 2022 after a selection process initiated by an advertisement published on 22nd September 2022 in daily Ratnagiri Times. Interviews were held on 28th September 2022. The Education Officer refused approval on the ground that the recruitment process did not comply with Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012. In the affidavit in reply, additional grounds were raised: a circular dated 5th May 2020 prohibiting recruitment during the Covid pandemic, non-compliance with the 15-day gap between advertisement and interview, non-publication in daily 'Prahaar' as required by GR dated 10th June 2022, and that the vacancy was for Social Science group, not Mathematics. The court noted that the petitioner was fully qualified and possessed TET qualification. The court found that the impugned order was vague and the grounds raised in the affidavit were not sustainable. The court held that the 6-day gap between advertisement and interview was a management lapse but did not invalidate the selection. Non-publication in Prahaar was not fatal. The vacancy was indeed for Mathematics as per Annexure-A. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Education Officer to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment with effect from 1st October 2022, and to enter his name in Shalarth Pranali and release grant-in-aid for salary.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Appointment of Shikshan Sevak - Approval - Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012 - The Education Officer refused approval citing non-compliance with the recruitment process under GR dated 6th February 2012, but failed to specify any particular violation. The court held that the reason was vague and did not justify denial of approval. (Paras 4-5)

B) Service Law - Recruitment - Gap between Advertisement and Interview - Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012 - The GR required a 15-day gap between advertisement and interview. The court held that the gap of 6 days (advertisement on 22nd September 2022, interview on 28th September 2022) was a lapse by the management, but did not render the selection bogus or illegal. The management was warned to comply in future. (Paras 6-7)

C) Service Law - Advertisement - Publication in Specified Newspapers - Government Resolution dated 10th June 2022 - The GR required publication in daily 'Prahaar' and 'Ratnagiri Times'. The advertisement was published only in Ratnagiri Times. The court held that non-publication in Prahaar did not warrant setting aside the selection of the otherwise qualified petitioner. (Para 8)

D) Service Law - Subject Group Requirement - Government Resolution dated 28th August 2015 clause 2.3.2 - The GR required formation of subject groups for standards 9 and 10. The advertisement was for Mathematics and Science group, and the vacancy was for Mathematics. The court found no violation. (Paras 9-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned order refusing approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on grounds of non-compliance with Government Resolutions regarding recruitment process is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Impugned order dated 26-09-2023 quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak with effect from 01-10-2022. Respondent No.2 directed to enter the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth Identity, and further direct the Respondents to release grant in aid for payment of monthly honorarium/salary to the Petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 01-10-2022 with all consequential benefits.

Law Points

  • Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012
  • Government Resolution dated 10th June 2022
  • Government Resolution dated 28th August 2015 clause 2.3.2
  • Circular dated 5th May 2020
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 2513

Writ Petition No. 16547 of 2023

2024-10-07

Ravindra V. Ghuge, M.M. Sathaye

2024:BHC-AS:39890-DB

Mr. Chetan Patil i/b. Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for the Petitioner, Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State, Mr. Bhushan Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5

Nayeem Akhtar Gouse Mohiuddin Sherpyade

The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, United Education Society, Anjanwel, New Bharat Urdu High School, Anjanwel

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of Education Officer refusing approval to appointment of Shikshan Sevak.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of impugned order dated 26-09-2023 and direction to grant approval to appointment with effect from 01-10-2022, and to enter name in Shalarth Pranali and release grant-in-aid.

Filing Reason

The Education Officer refused to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak citing non-compliance with Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012.

Previous Decisions

Impugned order dated 26-09-2023 by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri.

Issues

Whether the impugned order refusing approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on grounds of non-compliance with Government Resolutions regarding recruitment process is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he is fully qualified and the recruitment process was valid. Respondents argued that the recruitment process violated Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012, circular dated 5th May 2020, and other GRs.

Ratio Decidendi

Technical lapses in the recruitment process, such as a shorter gap between advertisement and interview or non-publication in one of the specified newspapers, do not invalidate the selection of a qualified candidate. The Education Officer's order refusing approval must be based on specific and sustainable grounds, not vague references to Government Resolutions.

Judgment Excerpts

We find this reason to be as vague as it is. This would not make the Petitioner’s selection bogus and illegal. Non-publication of the advertisement in Daily Prahaar, would not convince us to set aside the selection of the Petitioner, who is otherwise qualified.

Procedural History

The petitioner was appointed on 01-10-2022. The Education Officer passed the impugned order on 26-09-2023 refusing approval. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 07-10-2024.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Enhances Visitation Rights of Mother in Child Custody Dispute — Emphasizes Welfare of Child as Paramount Consideration. The Court held that visitation rights must be meaningful and in a child-friendly environment, not restricted to fo...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal to High Court for Speaking Order Because High Court Dismissed Appeal in Limine Without Recording Reasons. High Court's Summary Dismissal of Appeal Raising Arguable Points on Circumstantial Evidence and Forgery Of...