1 WP.1086.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1086 OF 2002.
1) Manoj s/o Vijayrao Asarkar,
aged 26 years, Occ. Service as
Peon, R/o Vidarbha Mills New
Colony, At & Post : Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, Dist. Amravati,
2) Purushottam s/o Sudhakarrao Chobe,
aged 29 years, Occ. Service as
Peon, R/o Vidarbha Mills Old
Colony, At & Post : Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, Dist. Amravati. ..... PETITIONERS.
....Versus....
1) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
2) Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati,
3) School Committee, Subodh High
School (Vidarbha Mills), Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, District
Amravati, through Ex-Officio
Secretary/Head Master. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate
for the petitioners,
Mr. N.R. Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:21 :::
2 WP.1086.02
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , J.)
1] Heard Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the
petitioners and Mr. N.R. Rode, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. Nobody appears for respondent no.3.
2] Petitioners were duly selected after advertisement dated 4.7.2001 as Peons and appointment orders were issued to them on 20.7.2001. This appointment was also approved on probation by respondent no.1 Education Officer vide order dated 28.9.2001. The said authority, however, on 21.2.2002 informed petitioners that for recruitment respondent no.3 management ought to have obtained necessary sanction from State Government and as that sanction was not obtained, the approval granted earlier was cancelled. Thus, orders of approval dated 28.9.2001 were cancelled. 3] In view of this action on part of respondent no.1, respondent no.3 management passed a resolution on 28.2.2002 and decided to put an end to services of petitioners. Orders of termination dated 28.2.2002 were accordingly issued.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:21 :::
3 WP.1086.02
4] In present Writ Petition filed before this Court on 11.3.2002
this Court while issuing Rule, continued interim order granted earlier on 19.3.2002, with the result, petitioners are even today in employment.
5] Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submits that when there was proper advertisement and Education authorities granted approval to recruit against vacant posts in open category, cancellation or withdrawal of approval without any opportunity to petitioners is bad. He further submits that as there is no power to exercise review, Education Officer himself could not have recalled the approval granted.
6] Mr. N.R. Rode, learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, submits that termination ought to have been questioned before School Tribunal in view of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. He further states that the respondent no.3 management did not obtain necessary approval from State Government and hence, respondent no.1 who is subordinate to State Government had no option but to recall the approval.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:21 :::
4 WP.1086.02
7] Facts, therefore, are not in dispute. On record our
attention has been invited to letter dated 30.6.2001 sent by respondent no.1 to management permitting it to publish advertisement for effecting recruitment to the two posts of Peon. Thus, after getting due permission from Education Department, advertisement was published on 4.7.2001 and then appointment orders were also issued on probation. Approval was given on 28.9.2001 on probation.
8] Cancellation because of alleged absence of approval from State Government in this backdrop cannot be a just and and valid reason.
9] Considering the fact that termination orders are issued on 28.2.2002 and present Writ Petition is pending thereafter with this Court for last about 15 years, we are not inclined to accept objection of learned A.G.P. that matter should be sent to School Tribunal. 10] We quash and set aside the orders dated 21.2.2002 cancelling approval given to appointment of petitioners and the orders of termination dated 28.2.2002 issued to respective petitioners by respondent no.3. Petitioners are accordingly reinstated and shall ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:21 ::: 5 WP.1086.02 continue in service as per law.
11] Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:18:21 :::