Kashibai D/O Bhagwan Giri vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1171 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.K. Tahilramani, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respective respondents.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.05.2001 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2001. The said order was issued by the present respondent no. 3 i.e. Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (for short the Mandal). The present writ petition also challenges the advertisement dated 10.06.2001 inviting applications for the post of Hostel Superintendent.

3. The Government of Maharashtra took a policy decision to establish Girls Hostels in every taluka in the State in the memory of the Ex-Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi. The said Priyadarshini Girls Hostels were to run on the lines of the Hostels for depressed classes run by the Social Welfare Department. The Government of Maharashtra framed the rules for management of such Priyadarshini Girls Hostels, which were applicable to the voluntary organisations running such Hostels. The Respondent No. 3 - Mandal is one such organisation running a Priyadarshini Girls Hostel at Kannad.

4. The Respondent No. 3 - Mandal had published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Hostel Superintendent in the Priyadarshini Girls Hostel at Kannad. Several candidates including the petitioner had applied for the said post. The petitioner came to be selected and appointed as Hostel Superintendent with effect from 16.11.1998 by the Respondent No. 3. However, as the premises for the Girls Hostel were not handed over by the Government to the Respondent No. 3, the Hostel could not function for about 4/5 months. Thereafter the premises came to be handed over by the Government to the Respondent No. 3 Mandal. The President of the Respondent No. 3 - Mandal informed the petitioner by letter dated 29.11.2000 to start functioning as Superintendent of the Girls Hostel with effect from 01.12.2000. However, it was made clear in the said letter that her appointment shall be regularised, as per the rules, immediately after grant of approval by the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Director (Higher Education), Aurangabad. The Respondent No. 3 Mandal had forwarded the proposal for the purpose of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Hostel Superintendent to the Joint Director (Higher Education), Aurangabad, on 01.12.2000. The approval to her appointment as Hostel Superintendent was awaited. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 - Mandal, by letter dated 01.05.2001, informed the petitioner that though the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Hostel Superintendent was sent to the Joint Director (Higher Education), Aurangabad, no approval, as yet received. It is further stated in the said letter that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications, hence, the petitioner was directed not to work as Hostel Superintendent from the new academic year commencing from June 2001.

5. The petitioner sent two representations to the Joint Director dated 01.06.2001 and 18.06.2001 requesting him to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Hostel Superintendent. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 3 - Mandal on 10.06.2001, had published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Hostel Superintendent. In the said advertisement, the requisite qualification for Hostel Superintendent was mentioned as Graduation with B.Ed. As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged the termination of her services on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification as well as the advertisement issued by the Respondent No. 3 for filling in the post of Hostel Superintendent. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 Mandal has falsely prescribed the qualification of B.Ed. for the post of Hostel Superintendent. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the requisite qualification for the post of Hostel Superintendent as per Rule 23(a) is Graduation or SSC passed or an experienced woman who shall permanently reside in the said Hostel. It is further stated that the petitioner had the requisite qualifications for being appointed as a Hostel Superintendent and hence the Respondent No. 3 has wrongly removed her from the post of Hostel Superintendent. It was stated that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, hence her removal on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification is without any substance or foundation. There is no rule or regulation which requires that the candidate for the post of Hostel Superintendent must possess B.Ed. qualification. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no misconduct was alleged on the part of the petitioner nor any show cause notice was given to her before terminating her services and hence, there was no ground, much less a justifiable reason, for terminating her services.

6. It is further stated that the Priyadarshini Girls Hostel was receiving 100% salary grants as well as building grants and was under the control of the Government and the Rules and Regulations for appointment of Hostel Superintendent, Payment of Grants, etc. are framed by the Government. It is contended that thus the Government exercises deep and pervasive control over the Hostel despite the fact that the Hostel is run by a voluntary organisation. This voluntary organisation was selected by the Government of Maharashtra to run the Priyadarshini Girls Hostel. In view of the above, the Respondent No. 3 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

7. A return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Director (Higher Education), Aurangabad. In the said return it is categorically stated that the Government Resolution dated 30.06.1999 is applicable to the post claimed by the petitioner. Rule 26 (A) of the said Resolution prescribes that the necessary qualification required for holding the post of Hostel Superintendent is Graduation or SSC passed or an experienced woman who shall permanently reside in the said Hostel.

8. Looking to this admitted position, it is clear that the petitioner holds the requisite qualification for the post of Hostel Superintendent in Priyadarshini Girls Hostel run by the Respondent No. 3 Mandal. The petitioner is M.A. and, therefore, it cannot be said that she is not possessing the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Hostel Superintendent in Priyadarshini Girls Hostel. In this view of the matter, removal of the petitioner from service on the ground that she did not hold the requisite qualification for the post of Hostel Superintendent is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the order of termination dated 01.05.2001 deserves to be quashed and set aside so also the advertisement issued by the Respondent No. 3 - Mandal dated 10.06.2001 for the post of Hostel Superintendent stating that the requisite qualification is B.Ed. is also erroneous and consequently, the said advertisement will also have to be quashed.

9. It may be stated that at the time of admission, this Court by order dated 07.11.2001 had granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) which reads as under:

(C) To grant interim stay to the operation, execution and implementation of the order/letter dated 01.05.2001 directing the petitioner not to work as Hostel Superintendent issued by the President of the respondent no. 3 - Mandal (Exh."K"), pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.

Thereafter on 8th July 2002, Rule was granted and Rule on stay was made returnable after three months and in the mean time, ad interim order was continued. In view of these orders, the petitioner is continued on the post of Hostel Superintendent.

10. In the result, in view of the fact that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, the order of her termination and the advertisement dated 10.06.2001 are set aside. Thus, we make the Rule absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses (A) and (B), which read as under:

(A) To quash the impugned letter/order dated 01.05.2001 directing the petitioner not to work as Hostel Superintendent of Priyadarshini Girls Hostel issued by the President of the respondent no. 3 - Mandal (Exh-"K") by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be.

(B) To quash the impugned advertisement dated

(Exh-"N") in daily "Sakal" inviting applications for the post of Hostel Superintendent in Priyadarshini Girls Hostel published by the respondent no. 3 Mandal by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, as the case may be.

11. No order as to costs.