On 4th October 2022, The Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench in a decision bench comprising of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that approval for an appointment is linked merely to grant-in-aid and absence of approval does not render an appointment per se invalid. (Murlidhar S/o Limbaji Mapari V. The State of Maharashtra & Others)
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as untrained teacher in Sant Tukaram Vidyamandir Kandari, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna by letter dated 30.06.1992. he was appointed in the above said school for the period from 11.06.1993 to 11.06.1996. The Head Master of the school issued no objection certificate to him for securing admission for B. Ed. course for the year 1996-1998. He was admitted to B. Ed. course by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik for the academic years 1996-1998. After the completion of the course, he was granted a permanent approval the Education Officer via order dated 30.03.1999 with effect from with effect from 06.07.1998. By order dated 17.05.2000, the university proposed to cancel his admission to B. Ed. course as well as his degree. The school, respondent no.4, also terminated the services of the petitioner in 2001 against which he filed a writ petition which was allowed. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 10.09.2014 and an enquiry was conducted by the respondent No. 2-university. Since no decision was taken by the respondent No. 2-university, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3946 of 2017, which was disposed of on 26.02.2018 recording statement on behalf of the university that final decision would be taken. The impugned order came to be passed on 14.08.2018 cancelling his admission to B. Ed. course and confiscating his degree. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 60 of 2002 before the School Tribunal, Latur challenging his termination, which came to be dismissed and is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that “the petitioner was fully eligible to seek admission to the course. The Headmaster of the school had duly recommended petitioner’s case for undergoing the B. Ed. Course, his appointment was approved by the Education Officer and the subsequent appointment during 11.06.1993 to 11.06.1996 was on a sanctioned post. After successfully undergoing the course, he has been awarded B. Ed. degree, which cannot be unceremoniously withdrawn by the university. On the basis of his B. Ed. qualification the Education Officer had granted permanent approval to his appointment with effect from 06.06.1998 and, therefore, withdrawal of his B. Ed. degree has adversely affected his employment with the school, leading to termination from service.” He relied upon the cases, St. Ulai High School and another Vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and another and Nitin S/o Panjabrao Phalke Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) and others and said, “the validity of the impugned order is required to be adjudged only on the basis of reasons recorded therein and that the reasons cannot be supplemented in the form of affidavit.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for respondents submitted that “there were several discrepancies in the appointment. Even though the appointment order stated the period of appointment as from 01.07.1992 to 30.04.1993, the Headmaster had issued a certificate in respect of different period from 01.07.1992 to 07.04.1993 (lesser period by 23 days). Under the information brochure specific seats were allotted for each district and despite the petitioner submitting application for admission for study centre of Parbhani district, his case was erroneously considered for admission in the merit list of Jalna district. under the information brochure specific seats were allotted for each district and despite the petitioner submitting application for admission for study centre of Parbhani district, his case was erroneously considered for admission in the merit list of Jalna district and approval to the post was sine qua non for the admission to the B. Ed. course.” The counsel for respondent no.4, school submitted that “Since acquisition of degree itself is invalid, the approval granted on 30.03.1999 is rendered invalid and there was no vacant post in the school for his accommodation.”
Observations and Order of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that, “In the impugned order, the sole reason assigned for cancelling petitioner’s degree was ‘non-grant of approval to the petitioner’s service’. Upon perusal of para 3 of the information brochure, we do not find that there is any such condition which mandated approval of the Education Officer to the appointment of teachers seeking admission to the course. It merely provides for full time appointment on a post sanctioned by the govt.” while referring to the cases, St. Ulai High School and Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, the court said that, “the reasons which are not to be found in the impugned decision dated 14.08.2018 cannot be taken into consideration while determining its validity.” Moreover, “the objective behind commencing the course was to assist the untrained teachers to acquire the qualification that they lacked. If this paramount objective is kept in mind, the objections raised by the respondent university to petitioner’s entry to the course, particularly after he had completed the same by earning a degree, becomes too hyper technical. Respondent university has also not been able to point out any specific provision under which, the acquired degree can be rescinded.”
The present writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble court. The impugned order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2-university was set aside and the admission and B. Ed. decree of the petitioner was held valid.
Case: Murlidhar S/o Limbaji Mapari V. The State of Maharashtra & Others
Citation: Writ Petition NO. 13510 OF 2019
Bench: Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 4th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
