The Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the rejection letter/order issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur region, which had refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a 'Shikshan Sevak' in a junior college.
The court relied on a recent decision in the case of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that if the government fails to nominate a candidate from surplus candidates and communicate with the management, a vacancy cannot remain unfilled indefinitely.
Background and Facts:
The petitioner, an employee of the management, challenged the rejection order of the Deputy Director of Education, who refused to grant approval for the petitioner's appointment as a 'Shikshan Sevak' in the junior college. The court examined the contentions of both parties and made observations before delivering its decision. The petitioner's appointment was in response to a vacancy that arose in a sanctioned post for a Full-Time teacher.
The school followed the procedures outlined in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), by seeking permission from the Education Department to fill the vacancy. However, as the department failed to respond or provide surplus candidates for appointment, the school initiated the selection process and appointed the petitioner, who scored the highest marks among the candidates. Subsequently, the school submitted the proposal for the petitioner's appointment to the Education Department, which rejected the proposal without providing any valid reason.
Contentions of the Appellant and Respondent:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection order was unlawful, as the department did not communicate any refusal or provide surplus candidates as required. The counsel relied on previous court decisions that emphasized the obligation of the department to nominate surplus candidates or allow the management to proceed with the appointment process in the absence of a response. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the management contravened government resolutions by not obtaining a "No Objection" from the State Government and by not following the selection process through the 'Pavitra Portal.'
Observations by the Court:
The court noted that the Education Department had persistently failed to respond promptly and act in accordance with the provisions of the MEPS Act and the court's previous decisions. It highlighted the department's duty to nominate surplus candidates and its selective focus on the obligations of the management without fulfilling its own responsibilities. The court emphasized the need for coordination among all stakeholders to ensure an effective appointment mechanism and called for a reconfiguration of the department's internal functioning.
Expressing strong disapproval of the Education Department's lackadaisical attitude, the Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale criticized the department for persisting with an inflexible approach despite the earlier court order, deeming it unacceptable. The bench condemned the officers of the government for disregarding court decisions, resulting in multiple litigations on the same issue. They warned that they would start imposing costs personally on the concerned officers if they brazenly continue to ignore judicial orders.
Expressing strong disapproval of the Education Department's lackadaisical attitude, the Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale criticized the department for persisting with an inflexible approach despite the earlier court order, deeming it unacceptable. The bench condemned the officers of the government for disregarding court decisions, resulting in multiple litigations on the same issue. They warned that they would start imposing costs personally on the concerned officers if they brazenly continue to ignore judicial orders.
Decision of the Court:
Considering the petitioner's impeccable performance and the management's prompt initiation of the selection process in the absence of a response from the department, the court held that the rejection order was unsustainable. It quashed the rejection letter and directed the second respondent to grant the necessary approval for the petitioner's appointment as a 'Shikshan Sevak' from the date of the appointment. The court also mandated the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Shalarth ID within two weeks.
Case Title: Rajan Sahadeo Ratul & Anr v The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Coram: Justices G.S.Patel & Neela Gokhale
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1423 OF 2021
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioners.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. VM Mali, AGP.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
