Bombay High Court
Datta Education Society, Nanded vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 August, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
9312.2014WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2014
Datta Education Society,
Talne, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded
Through its President
Narayan Govindrao Tawade,
Age 74 yrs., Occu. Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Talne, Taluka Hadgaon,
Dist. Nanded. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. Director of Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3. Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
5. Ravikant s/o. Balasaheb Deshmukh
Age 30 yrs, Occu. Service
R/o. Talegaon, Tq.Umri,
Dist. Nanded
6. Shubhangi Shivajirao Tawade
Age 22 yrs. Occu. Service
R/o. Talne, Tq. Hadgaon,
Dist. Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:38:16 :::
9312.2014WP.odt
2
7. Datta Secondary & Higher Secondary
School, Talne, Tq.Hadgaon,
Dist. Nanded - Through its
Head Master / Principal RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel, i/b Mr. V.R.
Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for respondent - State
Mr.S.B.Gastagar, Advocate for respondent nos.
5 and 6.
Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for respondent no.7.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
Reserved on : 25.07.2016
Pronounced on : 23.08.2016
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
2. This Petition takes exception to the
impugned order dated 11.09.2014 passed by
respondent no.3 - Deputy Director of
Education, Latur, confirming the approval
granted to the appointments of respondent
nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Shikshan Sevak in
respondent no.7 school on 10.08.2012. It is
further prayed that the appointment orders
dated 29.02.2012 of respondent nos. 5 and 6
9312.2014WP.odt
on the post of Shikshan Sevak in respondent
no.7 school and the approval dated 10.08.2012
be quashed and set aside.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the Managing
Committee belonging to the group of which the
petitioner is member, was elected in the year
2009, and since then they are looking after
the affairs of the trust. The new Committee
is again elected in June, 2012, for further
period of three years. Accordingly, all
respondent authorities were informed that the
group of petitioner is elected on 04.08.2009
and change report was also filed.
Thereafter, even from the year 2012, the
group of petitioner is elected and even rival
group did not file any change report before
the Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is
submitted that as the posts were vacant in
the school run by the petitioner, the
petitioner made an application on 31.08.2012
9312.2014WP.odt
to respondent no.3 - Deputy Director of
Education, requesting to grant permission to
fill in the said vacant posts. It was stated
in the application addressed to the Education
Officer that the rival group, who has no
lawful authority, is claiming that they are
in power and trying to appoint their
relatives on the vacant posts. It is
submitted that in the month of December,
2012, some members of the present Managing
Committee learnt that respondent nos. 5 and 6
are appointed as Shikshan Sevak by the
Headmaster. The petitioner filed application
under Right to Information Act (in short 'RTI
Act') to the Headmaster, seeking information
of such appointments. Accordingly, the
information was received, disclosing that
respondent nos. 5 and 6 are appointed as
Shikshan Sevak.
4. It is further submitted that before
making such appointments of respondent nos.5
9312.2014WP.odt
and 6 as Shikshan Sevak, no procedure as
contemplated under Section 5 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Condition of Services) Regulation Act, 1977
[in short 'MEPS Act'] r/w. Rule 9 has been
followed by the Headmaster. No advertisement
was issued before making appointments of
respondent nos.5 and 6 by the Head Master.
Though the present Managing Committee is
represented by the petitioner in power, the
Headmaster acted arbitrarily in collusion
with the so-called person claiming to be in
power, whose change reports are rejected and
no appeal has been filed by them, and
therefore, the petitioner terminated the
services of respondent nos.5 and 6, by an
order dated 29.04.2013. The said order was
sent by RPAD. Accordingly, the Education
Officer was informed on 04.05.2013 about
termination of services of respondent nos.5
and 6. In spite of terminating the services
9312.2014WP.odt
of respondent nos.5 and 6 by the Managing
Committee, the Headmaster continued them in
service in collusion with the earlier
President and the Secretary of the trust as
respondent nos.5 and 6 are their relatives.
The then Headmaster was acting highhandedly,
informed that as the approval has been
granted by respondent no.3 Deputy Director of
Education in favour of respondent nos.5 and
6, therefore, they cannot be removed from the
service. Therefore, the petitioner filed
application under RTI Act to the office of
the Education Officer/Deputy Director,
seeking information and the copy of approval
order. Accordingly, the information was given
to the petitioner on 10.07.2013 by the
respondent authority, providing the copy of
approval dated 10.08.2012 granted in favour
of respondent nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner
also filed an application under RTI Act to
respondent no.3 on 16.04.2013, requesting to
9312.2014WP.odt
give the copies of all documents containing
file about the proposal granting approval in
favour of respondent nos.5 and 6 submitted by
the Headmaster. However, as no information
was received from respondent no.3, the
petitioner again filed application on
20.06.2013, seeking copies of the said
documents, however, there was no response
from the office of respondent no.3.
Therefore, the petitioner filed Appeal under
RTI Act before the Appellate Authority on
25.07.2013. Since the appointments of
respondent nos.5 and 6 were made by the
Headmaster without permission of the
management, the proceedings of his removal
from the said post was initiated, show cause
notice was given to him on 24.05.2013, and
accordingly, after conducting an enquiry
about misconduct of the Headmaster,
ultimately he was removed from the post of
Headmaster. The Resolution was passed to that
9312.2014WP.odt
effect on 17.09.2013, thereby resolving to
terminate the services of the Headmaster and
the said Resolution/order of termination has
come into force with effect from 01.10.2013.
The petitioner immediately informed the
respondent authorities about passing of such
termination order, despite this, respondent
nos.3 and 4 continued to release pay bills of
the respondent Headmaster, whose services
were already terminated as he has illegally
appointed respondent nos.5 and 6. Then the
petitioner filed a representation with
respondent no.3, but no action was taken. The
petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.
7559/2013 before the Bombay High Court, Bench
at Aurangabad. The said Writ Petition was
disposed of by giving directions to
respondent no.3 to decide representations
made by the petitioner within a period of 6
weeks, by an order dated 24.09.2013.
9312.2014WP.odt
5. It is further submitted that the
petitioner remained present before respondent
no.3 and filed detail reply on 30.10.2013,
thereby pointing out that, the appointments
of respondent nos.5 and 6 are illegal as they
are not qualified and their appointments are
made without following due procedure and
request was made to withdraw the approval
dated 10.08.2012 granted in favour of
respondent nos.5 and 6. In spite of direction
given to respondent no.3 to decide
representation of the petitioner, no decision
was taken within stipulated period.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed number of
representations, however, no heed was paid to
such representations. The petitioner filed
Writ Petition No.2159/2014, seeking direction
to the respondent authorities to stop salary
of the Headmaster as his services were
terminated in the month of October, 2013.
After filing such Writ Petition, respondent
9312.2014WP.odt
no.3 had conducted hearing on 26.08.2014, and
accordingly, the decision was taken by him on
11.09.2014, thereby confirming the approval
granted in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6
and rejected the objection of the petitioner.
It is submitted that respondent nos.5 and 6
are closely related to the rival group and
the Headmaster is in collusion with the said
rival group by preparing forged record shown
that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are appointed as
Shikshan Sevak. Respondent no.5 is the
husband of Shrutika, who is daughter of
Urmila. The said Urmila is a daughter of
Vithal Marotirao Tawade, who was claiming to
be the Secretary, and therefore, respondent
no.5 is the son-in-law of the then Secretary
Shri Vithal Marotrao Tawade while respondent
no.6 is the grand-daughter of the then
President Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawade. It is
submitted that the false record has been
prepared by the Headmaster showing that
9312.2014WP.odt
respondent nos.5 and 6 were appointed on
29.02.2012. The petitioners received the
information under RTI Act that the
advertisement was given in the news paper
namely 'Tarun Mukhnayak', which is not widely
circulated news paper and is also not known
to the people. As per the record received, it
is shown that the interviews were held on
28.02.2012 by one Shri G.P.Kamble, who is the
subject expert and is a teacher in the
school. It is submitted that on 28.02.2012
the said Shri G.P.Kamble was not on duty and
was posted out of station. In support of this
contention the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner invited our attention to the copy
of document showing that on the said date
Shri G.P.Kamble was not on duty.
6. It is further submitted that one
muster roll shows that the signatures during
the said period only of the Headmaster and
one Shri Kamble, and the other muster roll
9312.2014WP.odt
was separate in respect to the respondent
nos. 5 and 6. If really respondent nos.5 and
6 were appointed in the month of February,
2012, then their signatures ought to have
appeared on the same muster roll, which have
been signed by the Headmaster and other
teachers. The separate muster roll maintained
clearly shows that the appointments are
backdated and without following any procedure
and the forged record has been prepared in
order to accommodate the close relatives of
the then Secretary and President. It is
submitted that the State Government has
issued Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012, wherein the directions are issued
in respect of filling in the vacant posts of
teaching and non-teaching staff. In view of
clause-4 of the said Government Resolution
(Exhibit Z-1 Page-195), it has been stated
that the management shall fill in the vacant
posts by giving advertisement after the
9312.2014WP.odt
permission given by the Competent Authority
within two months. The advertisement is to be
given in two widely circulated news papers
giving all details. Respondent no.3 did not
consider the voluminous documents submitted
by the petitioner and unreasoned order has
been passed by respondent no.3. It is
submitted that the entire record was forged
and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are shown to be
appointed in accordance with the procedure on
the basis of such forged and fabricated
documents. Respondent no.3 did not consider
the guidelines issued in Government
Resolution dated 06.02.2012. It is submitted
that even the reservation roster was not
followed while making appointments in favour
of respondent nos. 5 and 6.
7. The learned Senior Counsel also
invited our attention to the averments in
affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-
reply filed by the respondents. It is
9312.2014WP.odt
submitted that as two additional posts were
sanctioned by the Deputy Director, therefore,
it was necessary to get the roster verified
before making appointments as per the
sanction order issued by the Deputy Director.
Respondent no.3 himself has admitted in the
affidavit-in-reply that there was backlog of
one post of OBC category. The news paper in
which the advertisement was given is not
widely circulated newspaper and the same is
also not registered and recognized news paper
and even not registered with the District
Publicity Office, Nanded. It is submitted
that Shri Dangat, who was appointed in the
year 1989, was appointed from OBC category.
Subsequently, the caste 'Vanjari', which was
recognized as OBC, was included in NT (D)
category, and therefore, the said Shri Dangat
ought to have been considered from N.T. (D)
category. The said fact was not brought to
the notice while verification of roster point
9312.2014WP.odt
in the year 2009. The learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner pressed into service
exposition of law in the case of Pramod Kumar
Vs. U.P.Secondary Eduation Services
Commission and others1 and submits that when
the appointments are made and such appointee
lack of essential qualifications at the time
of appointments, such illegality cannot be
cured. For the same preposition, he also
pressed into service exposition of law in the
cases of Vidya Bharti Shikshan Sanstha,
Goregaon, District Gondia Vs. Presiding
Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur
and others2, Priyadarshini Education Trust
and others Vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o. Abdul
Rasheed and others3 and the leaned counsel
also invited our attention to the judgment of
the Bench presided over by learned Single
Judge in the case Sawale Motiram Shridhar Vs.
1 (2008) 7 SCC 153
2 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 718
3 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 667
9312.2014WP.odt
Maharashtra Seva Sangh, Solapur and
others4. Therefore, relying upon the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto,
rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner,
relevant proceedings of RTI Act, the
Government Resolution, the afore-mentioned
reported judgments of the Supreme Court and
the High Court, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the
Petition deserves to be allowed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.7 relying upon the averments in
the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
no.7 submits that there is no Resolution
passed by the management authorizing
Mr.Narayan Govindrao Tawade to file this
Petition. It is submitted that he is not the
President of the petitioner-society as per
Schedule-I of the said trust, one Keshavrao
Sonbarao Tawade is the President and
4 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 233
9312.2014WP.odt
Shri Vithal Marutiro Tawade is the Secretary
of the said trust. Shri Narayan Govindrao
Tawade is only the member of the Managing
Committee as per the schedule-I of the said
trust. Datta Education society is registered
trust and the said trust is having its own
Rules and Regulations. The said trust is
running the school namely Datta Madhyamik Va
Uccha Madhyamik School at Talni, Taluka
Hadgaon, since 1958. There is a Managing
Committee, consisting of 7 members, including
the office bearers. Out of 7 members, one
President namely Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawade
died. He was the Treasurer. The learned
counsel also invited our attention to the
fact that, at the relevant time when the
appointments of respondent nos.5 and 6 were
made, there was no Managing Committee in the
office due to dispute pending before the
Competent Authority, and therefore, the
Headmaster issued an advertisement. In
9312.2014WP.odt
absence of the Managing Committee, the
Headmaster is authorized to appoint the
teachers keeping in view the vacancies
available and need of teachers.
9. It is submitted that petitioner
Narayan Tawade failed in the proceedings
initiated before the Charity Commissioner
raising the dispute about elections/
appointment of trustees. It is submitted that
change report No.921 of 2014 was filed in the
office of Assistant Charity Commissioner and
the same is pending. Therefore, the present
petitioner is not the President of the said
trust, having the authority to file this Writ
Petition, challenging the appointments of
respondent nos.5 and 6, which are made after
following due procedure and with consultation
of the Education Officer and also the Deputy
Director of Education and more particularly,
as per the orders passed by the Assistant
Charity Commissioner, Nanded, in Enquiry No.
9312.2014WP.odt
1367 of 2010, under Section 41-A dated
28.09.2010. It is submitted that Narayan
Tawade is residing at Yavatmal. Earlier he
was in Government service and after his
retirement, he has his medical practice at
Yavatmal and in fact he has no concerned with
the said trust. However, he is trying to
interfere in smooth functioning of the trust
to meet illegal demands. The petitioner has
no authority and power to make appointment of
teachers, but with a view to collect the huge
donation and to fill up those posts, the
petitioner was trying to obtain permission to
fill up the vacant post. However, neither the
Education Officer, nor the Charity
Commissioner granted permission to Narayan
Tawade to fill up those posts. On the
contrary, the Assistant Charity Commissioner
in the application filed by the petitioner,
directed the Education Officer to take
appropriate steps to fill up the vacant posts
9312.2014WP.odt
as there is no legal School Committee in the
said school.
10. It is submitted that two posts of
Junior Lecturers in the Higher Secondary
School were sanctioned by the Deputy
Director, vide order dated 09.12.2010 and
directed the School authorities to submit the
revised proposal for the staff approval.
Earlier in the said Higher Secondary School,
one Shri Kamble was working in the said
School. The said Higher Secondary school is
having only faculty of Art and Shri Kamble
has also retired from the service due to age
of superannuation in the month of July, 2012.
However, there was no teacher in the Higher
Secondary School and the students were
suffering due to non-availability of
teachers. Respondent no.7 consulted with the
Education Officer as well as the Deputy
Director of Education, Latur. However, he was
told to act as per the Government Resolution
9312.2014WP.odt
dated 19.11.2001 as there is no School
Committee in existence. Therefore, respondent
no.7 published an advertisement in daily news
paper, which was widely circulated in the
Nanded District, calling upon eligible
candidates for appointment of the two vacant
posts of teacher in the Higher Secondary
School and one teacher in the Secondary
School as per the workload available in the
said School. As there is no sanction post
subject-wise to the Higher Secondary School,
and therefore, the candidates possessing the
qualification for teaching Marathi,
Economics, Hindi and English subjects were
invited. As per the said advertisement, the
candidates have applied. The Local Selection
Committee conducted the interviews for two
posts. There were four applicants. The said
advertisement was as per the roster of the
reservation, which was duly verified by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, B.C. Cell.
9312.2014WP.odt
Accordingly, the interviews were conducted on
28.02.2012 in the school premises and the
Local Selection Committee selected respondent
nos. 5 and 6 respectively as Shikshan Sevak
on probation for three years. Accordingly,
the proposal was submitted for approval of
the said appointments with the office of
Deputy Director of Education, Latur, along
with all requisite documents, including the
process of selection, roster of reservation,
educational qualifications of the selected
candidates. The Deputy Director of Education
has granted approval to the appointment of
the respondent nos. 5 and 6, vide order dated
10.08.2012. The learned counsel for the
respondent no.7 invited our attention to the
copies of letter of Dy. Director of Education
dated 09.12.2010, staff approval for the year
2011-12, advertisement, report of the
Selection Committee dated 28.02.2012 along
with the list of the candidates, who have
9312.2014WP.odt
attended the interviews, the copies of
appointment orders of respondent nos. 5 and 6
dated 29.02.2012, copy of roster of
reservation and the proposal submitted by
respondent no.7 for approval and approval
order dated 10.08.2012. It is submitted that
there was only one Lecturer namely Shri
Kamble, he was going to retire in the month
of July, 2012, and therefore, there was no
teacher in the Higher Secondary School. As
per the approval, the Deputy Director
sanctioned two more posts for secondary
school. The respondent nos.5 and 6 are
qualified, eligible and their appointments
are as per the roster. The advertisement was
issued for three posts, however, nobody had
applied for third post of secondary school,
and therefore, the said post is not filled
in. It is submitted that the petitioner is in
habit of filing applications/representations
and the Petitions for no reason. The High
9312.2014WP.odt
Court directed the Deputy Director of
Education to conduct an enquiry on the
representations of the petitioner and decide
the same within 6 weeks. The said directions
were issued in Writ Petition No.7579/2013,
filed by the petitioner. As per the
directions dated 25.11.2013, the Deputy
Director of Education issued notices to all
concerned including the petitioner and after
hearing the parties and perusing the record,
decided the said representation on
11.09.2014. It is submitted that there is no
sanction for independent post for each
subject. Therefore the appointments of
respondent nos.5 and 6 are as per their
qualifications and those are made as per the
Government Resolution dated 19.11.2001 by the
Headmaster due to the dispute in the
management. The said order of the Deputy
Director needs no interference. It is
submitted that the petitioner has no right or
9312.2014WP.odt
power either to constitute the Committee for
conducting the enquiry against respondent no.
7 or to terminate his services, since he is
not the President or the Secretary of the
said trust. Respondent no.7 is working in the
said school honestly and sincerely since
1985. He has completed continuous service
about more than 28 years. He has not received
single memo or notice during his entire
service tenure. It is submitted that the
Deputy Director of Education has heard all
the parties and perused the record and then
held that the appointments made in favour of
respondent nos.5 and 6 are in accordance with
the procedure.
11. It is submitted that newly appointed
employees have signed on separate muster
roll, because there was ending of academic
year and they were not approved teachers at
that time, and therefore, they signed on the
separate muster roll and no such false record
9312.2014WP.odt
is prepared by the respondent no.7 as alleged
by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the respondent no.7 submits that
Petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.5 and 6 submits that the
petitioner has no locus standi to file
Petition, who claims to be the President of
the trust. However, he is not the President
of the trust and one Keshavrao Sonbarao
Tawade is the President of the trust and
Shri Vithal Marutirao Tawade is the Secretary
of the trust. It is submitted that there is
no legal Committee in the office and as per
the Schedule-I, de facto trustees are on
record. Therefore, the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, considering the situation,
directed the Education Officer to take
necessary steps for making the appointment of
the staff in the school run by the said trust
in absence of the legal management. The
9312.2014WP.odt
Headmaster is entitled to make the
appointments due to non-availability of
school Committee, in view of the Circular
issued by the Director of Education dated
19.11.2001. It is submitted that the
petitioner is trying to interfere in the
smooth functioning of the trust. It is
submitted that respondent nos.5 and 6 were
interviewed on 28.02.2012 in the school
premises by the Local Selection Committee
along with the other candidates. The said
Selection Committee selected respondent nos.
5 and 6 as Shikshan Sevak on probation for
three years, vide appointment order dated
10.08.2012. Their appointments are as per
the staffing pattern. They have completed
three years satisfactory service as Shikshan
Sevak, and therefore, in view of the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of
the MEPS Act, they have acquired status of
deemed confirmed employees. Therefore,
9312.2014WP.odt
relying upon the averments in the affidavit-
in-reply, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.5 and 6 submits that the
Petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. The learned AGP appearing for the
respondent - State relying upon the averments
in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
no.3, additional affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no.4 and additional affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent no.2 submits
that the appointment of respondent nos.5 and
6 is in accordance with the procedure
established. They are qualified for the post
considering the workload available for the
academic year 2010-11, the School management
was communicated by the Deputy Director of
Education, Latur Region, Latur that school is
entitled for more than two posts in the
Higher Secondary School. The individual
approvals are given to the appointment of
respondent nos.5 and 6. The representation
9312.2014WP.odt
of the petitioner has been decided by the
Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region,
Latur on 26.08.2014, and reasoned order has
been passed on 11.09.2014. As the roster of
the petitioner society is verified by B.C.
Cell on 18.11.2009, and the backlog of
teaching staff was mentioned nil, and there
was one post of Secondary teacher remained
vacant. Though two additional posts of
Shikshan Sevak were sanctioned by the
Government, there will be backlog of one post
of OBC category. As per the advertisement of
three posts, one post of OBC category was
filled in by appointing one Smt.Neeta
Ramdasrao Ganjare as Secondary teacher, and
on two posts of Shikshan Sevaks from open
category, respondent nos. 5 and 6 are
appointed. Respondent no.4 has filed
additional affidavit, and it is stated in the
said affidavit that whether 'Dainik Muknayak'
Times in which the advertisement was given is
9312.2014WP.odt
registered news paper or otherwise, was
enquired from the office of the District
Information Officer, Nanded. It was informed
by the said office that the said news paper
i.e. 'Dainik Muknayak' Times, is not listed
in the advertisement registered news paper in
Nanded District. It is stated that
considering three posts of higher secondary
teachers, there is backlog of one post of OBC
category teacher. It is submitted that
keeping in view the necessity of the
appointment of teachers, the appointment of
respondent nos.5 and 6 have been made, and
the approval is granted to their appointment
on certain terms and conditions. Respondent
no.2 has also filed additional affidavit and
more or less the contentions raised by
respondent no.4 have been reiterated in the
said affidavit-in-reply.
14. We have considered the submissions
of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
9312.2014WP.odt
the petitioner, the learned AGP appearing for
the respondent - State and the learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos.5, 6 and
7. With their able assistance, perused the
pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto,
the replies filed by the respondents and also
rejoinder-affidavits filed by the petitioner,
the relevant provisions of the MEPS Act and
Rules, and also the judgment cited across the
Bar by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner. The Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in
the case of Priyadarshini Education Trust
(supra), while considering and interpreting
the provisions of Section 5 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, has
taken a view that:
"Duly appointed, in the manner
prescribed" would be an appointment
of a person who is eligible
9312.2014WP.odt
(qualified for the post) for
appointment, who is selected by due
process of selection i.e. by
competition amongst all eligible and
desirous candidates, and who is
appointed on a permanent vacant
post. In other words, inviting
applications, as also holding of
screening tests, enabling all
eligible and desirous candidates to
compete for selection and
appointment, is a must. Once an
eligible candidate (duly qualified
as required) is selected by
selection process as above, for
filling in a permanent vacancy,
there is no option for the
management and it is obligatory on
it to appoint such person on
probation for a period of two years.
It is neither open for the
management to appoint him for one
academic year or any period shorter
than two years probation period, nor
it is open for Education Officer to
grant approval for such shorter
period (in fact, in view of
requirement as in clause (i) above,
9312.2014WP.odt
the process of grant of approval by
Education Officer should begin with
examination of selection process and
its validity.) The candidate thus
selected with due process and
appointed on probation shall enjoy
status of deemed permanency on
completion of two years, unless
extension of probation is informed,
or termination is ordered. The
appointment of a person not
belonging to reserved category, in a
post reserved for a particular
category, because the candidate of
that category is not available,
shall be absolutely temporary and on
an year to year basis, governed by
sub-rule (9) of Rule 9, although in
a permanent vacancy.
15. Therefore, keeping in view the
exposition of law in the case of
Priyadarshini Education Trust (supra), we
have to consider whether in the facts of the
present case, respondent nos.5 and 6 are
selected by due process of selection on the
9312.2014WP.odt
post of Shikshan Sevak. While advertising the
posts and also during the selection process,
whether the tests of competition amongst all
eligible and desirous candidates was adverted
to and followed by the concerned respondents.
Whether the permission of the respondent
State Authorities was sought taking recourse
to Section 5 (1) of the MEPS Act before the
posts were advertised. Whether the procedure
contemplated under Section 5 (1) of the said
Act and the Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012 issued by School Education and
Sports Department was really followed.
We are examining the case in hand, in
peculiar facts of this case, inasmuch as the
petitioner has specifically pleaded in the
Petition that Ravikant Balasaheb Deshmukh and
Subhangi Shivajirao Tawade, who are
respondent nos.5 and 6 respectively in this
Petition, are the relatives of Keshavrao
Sonbarao Tawade, who claims to be the
9312.2014WP.odt
President of the trust and respondent no.5 is
the son-in-law of Vithal Marotrao Tawade, who
is claiming to be Secretary of the said
trust. It is specifically pleaded by the
petitioner that, respondent no.5 is the son-
in-law of Vithal Marotrao Tawade and
respondent no.6 is grand-daughter of the then
President Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawade. On
careful perusal of the replies filed by
respondents, there is no denial to the said
relationship by the respondents. Therefore,
the present case requires in depth
introspection so as to find out whether the
selection process, which was initiated and
ultimately culminated into the appointments
of respondent nos.5 and 6, was really in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5
(1) of the said Act, and the Government
Resolution dated 06.02.2012 issued by School
Education and Sports Department, Government
of Maharashtra, Mumbai. We have considered
9312.2014WP.odt
the preliminary objection raised by the
respondent nos.5 to 7 that, though the
petitioner claims to be the President of the
said trust, he is not the President of the
trust. However, fact remains that, respondent
nos. 5 to 7 have admitted in their affidavit-
in-replies that Shri Narayan Tawade i.e. the
petitioner herein is a member of the trust.
Therefore, we are inclined to entertain this
Petition at his instance, as he is one of the
trustees of the petitioner society/trust and
not stranger. The provisions of Section 5 (1)
of the MEPS Act, reads thus:
5. Certain obligations of
Management of private schools.
(1) The Management shall, as soon
as possible, fill in, in the manner
prescribed, every permanent vacancy
in a private school by the
appointment of a person duly
qualified to fill such vacancy:
[Provided that, unless such
9312.2014WP.odt
vacancy is to be filled in by
promotion, the Management shall,
before proceeding to fill such
vacancy, ascertain from the
Educational Inspector, Greater
Bombay, [the Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad or, as the case may
be, the Director or the Officer
designated by the Director in
respect of schools imparting
technical, vocational, art or
special education, whether there is
any suitable person available on the
list of surplus persons maintained
by him, for absorption in other
schools and in the event of such
person being available, the
Management shall appoint that person
in such vacancy.]
16. The aforesaid provision came up for
consideration before the Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad,
in the case of Priyadarshini Education Trust
(supra). As already observed, the view is
taken in the said judgment that, due process
9312.2014WP.odt
of selection means by competition amongst all
eligible and desirous candidates, by inviting
applications as also holding of screening
tests, enabling all eligible and desirous
candidates to compete for selection and
appointments. In the present case, though the
Deputy Director of Education in the month of
December 2010 informed the respondent
institution/school that two posts of teacher
are admissible in Higher Secondary School,
however, the selection process was undergone
in the year 2012. The respondents have not
placed on record any documents showing that
before advertising the post, the concerned
Headmaster had informed the concerned
Education Officer / Deputy Director of
Education that, they intend to advertise
posts and for the said purpose, the
permission is sought as contemplated under
Section 5 (1) of the said Act. As already
observed, the respondents have not placed on
9312.2014WP.odt
record the copies of the documents showing
that as a matter of fact before advertising
the post an exercise envisaged under Section
5 (1) of the MEPS Act was gone into by the
concerned Headmaster/Local Management before
advertising the post. Therefore, there was no
adherence to the procedure stated in the said
provision, and in absence of such adherence,
the entire exercise undertaken by the
respondents to advertise the post, that too,
in the newspaper, which is not registered
with the Local District Authority and not
widely circulated in the vicinity, was not in
accordance with the provisions of the MEPS
Act and Rules and also Government Resolution
dated 06.02.2012 issued by the School
Education and Sports Department. Therefore,
there is no slightest doubt that, the
respondents so as to exclude the desirous and
qualified and more meritorious candidates,
which possibly are available hundreds in
9312.2014WP.odt
number in the society, have published an
advertisement in the newspaper 'Tarun
Mukhnayak', which is not registered with
Competent Authority and not widely
circulated. At this juncture, it would be
apt to reproduce herein below the relevant
provisions of the Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012 issued by the School Education and
Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai:-
'kklu fu.kZ ; &
mijksDr izLrkousrhy ckch o ek-mPPk U;k;ky;kps
vkns'k fopkjkr ?ksrk] f'k{[email protected]'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaph fu;qDrh]
oS;fDrd ekU;rk] inksUuR;k o vuq"kafxd ckchaP;k lanHkkZr
[kkyhyizek.ks dk;Zi/nrhpk voyac dj.;kr ;kok %&
v½ 'kS{kf.kd [email protected];oLFkkiukus djko;kph dk;Zokgh %&
1½ egkjk"Vª [kktxh 'kkGkarhy deZpkjh ¼lsosP;k 'krhZ½
fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1977 e/khy dye 5 ¼1½ uqlkj in
Hkj.;klkBh 'kD; frrD;k yodj fofgr dj.;kr vkysY;k jhrhus
in Hkj.;kph dk;Zokgh dj.;kr ;koh- ijarq vls fjdkes in
Hkj.;kiwohZ lacaf/kr f'k{k.kkf/kdkjh] [email protected]'k{k.k fujh{[email protected]'k{k.k
milapkyd dk;kZy;kdMs Bso.;kr vkysY;k vfrfjDr f'k{kdkaP;k
9312.2014WP.odt
;knhe/kwu ;ksX; O;Drh miyC/k gks.;ktksxh vkgs fdaok dls ;kph
[kk=h d:u ?;koh- v'kh dks.krhgh O;Drh miyC/k vlsy
R;kckcrhr O;oLFkkiu v'kk fjdkE;k inkoj R;k O;Drhph
fu;qDrh djhy-
2½ laLFkse/khy dks.krsgh in fjDr >kY;kuarj izpfyr
vkj{k.k /kksj.kkuqlkj lnj in dks.kR;k izoXkkZrwu Hkj.ks visf{kr
vkgs ;kph [kk=h dj.;klkBh fcanwukekoyhph ¼jksLVj½ lacfa /kr
l{ke izkf/kdk&;kdMwu iMrkG.kh d:u ?;koh o ;k
izkf/kdk&;kaP;k vfHkizk;kauqlkj in foof{kr izoxkZrwu Hkj.;kph
fofgr dk;Zokgh djkoh-
3½ lacaf/kr dk;kZy;kdMs vfrfjDr deZpkjh miyC/k
ulY;kl laLFksl lnj in ljGlsok Hkjrhus Hkj.;klkBh tkfgjkr
ns.;kph ijokuxh fnyh tkbZy- R;klkBh laLFksus foof{kr in
dks.kR;k izoxkZlkBh jk[kho vkgs] inklkBh vko';d 'kS{kf.kd
ik=rk ¼ ek/;e o fo"k;klg ½ dk; vkgs] o;kse;kZnsph vV dk;
vkgs] in [email protected]/[email protected]?kM;kGh [email protected] dkyko/kh ;kiSdh
fuf'pr dks.krs vkgs] in vuqnkfur @va'kr% vuqnkfur @fouk
[email protected];e foukvuqnkfur] lapekU;rsuqlkj in ekU;]
izLrkfor ok<ho in] inkps eku/[email protected] ] inklkBh miyC/k
dk;ZHkkj bR;knh loZ vVh o 'krhZ uewn d:u tkfgjkrhl
ijokuxh feG.;kckcrpk izLrko l{ke izkf/kdk&;kdMs lknj
djkok-
4½ l{ke izkf/kdk&;kus tkfgjkr ns.;kl ijokuxh
fnY;kiklwu laLFksus lnj in Hkj.;kph dk;Zokgh 2 efgU;kaP;k
9312.2014WP.odt
vkr dj.ks ca/kudkjd jkghy- tkfgjkr gh lokZf/kd [kikP;k
nksu orZekui=kae/;s oj uewn dsY;kizek.ks loZ rif'kykalg ns.;kr
;koh- tkfgjkrhe/khy ri'khy gk oLrqfLFkrh'kh folaxr vlY;kl
o R;keqGs fu;qDr deZpk&;kaph ekU;rk ns.;ke/;s vMp.kh
vkY;kl R;kl laLFkk tckcnkj jkghy-
5½ lnj in ekxkloxhZ; izoxkZrwu Hkjko;kps vlY;kl
lacaf/kr dk;kZy;kdMwu R;k&R;k izoxkZP;k mesnokjkaph ;knh izkIr
d:u ?;koh- ¼ mnk- lektdY;k.k vf/kdkjh] vkfnoklh fodkl
vf/kdkjh bR;knh ½
6½ laLFksus tkfgjkr nsrkuk oLrqfLFkrh'kh folaxr ri'khy
nsmu use.kwd dsY;kl o ekU;rk f'kfcjke/;s lnj ckch fun'kZukl
vkY;keqGs l{ke izkf/kdk&;kdMwu ekU;rk ukdkjyh xsY;kl
njE;kuP;k dkyko/khe/;s lnj deZpk&;kus dsysY;k dkekps osru
lacaf/kr laLFksus ns.ks ca/kudkjd jkghy-
17. The aforesaid Government Resolution
further contemplates the exercise/duty of the
Education Officer, Zilla Parishad/Education
Inspector/Deputy Director of Education when
the permission is sought by the Headmaster/
management for appointments on the post in
following manner:
9312.2014WP.odt
c½ f'k{k.kkf/kdkjh] [email protected]'k{k.k fujh{kd @ f'k{k.k
milapkyd dk;kZy;kus djko;kph dk;Zokgh %&
4½ l{ke izkf/kdk&;kph ijokuxh u ?ksrk o vfrfjDr
deZpk&;kaps lekos'ku u djrk laLFksus ijLij dsysY;k use.kqdkauk
ekU;rk ns.;kr ;sow u;sr- vfrfjDr deZpkjh miyC/k vlrkuk o
ojhy dk;Zi/nrhpk voyac u djrk uO;kus fu;qDr deZpk&;kauk
ekU;rk fnY;kl ;kckcr lacaf/kr f'k{k.kkf/[email protected]'k{k.k fufj{kd
@foHkkxh; f'k{k.k milapkyd O;fDr'k% tckcnkj jkgrhy-
10- 2½ lacaf/kr f'k{k.k laLFksl ins Hkj.;kckcr tkfgjkr ns.;kph
ijokuxh ns.;kiwohZ lacaf/kr foHkkxh; f'k{k.k milapkyd @
f'k{k.kkf/[email protected]'k{k.k fufj{kd ;kauh mijksDr ckchaph dkVsdksji.ks
rikl.kh d:u tkfgjkrhe/;s ojhy loZ ckchapk Li"V mYys[k
dj.;kP;k vVhoj r'kh ijokuxh ns.;kr ;koh- rlsp] ojhy
ckchapk lekos'k lacaf/kr laLFksus fu;qDr dsysY;k f'k{[email protected]
f'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaP;k fu;qDrh vkns'kklkscrP;k izi=kr
dj.;kckcrP;k lwpuk loZ f'k{k.k [email protected];oLFkkidkauk
ns.;kr ;kO;kr- mijksDr ckch uewn ulysyh fu;qDrh
vkns'kklkscrph izi=s oS;fDrd ekU;rsP;k izLrkoklkscr vlY;kl
vls izLrko =qVh iwrZrslkBh lacfa /kr [email protected];oLFkkiukyk
rkRdkG ijr dj.;kr ;kosr-
18. The said Government Resolution is
issued by the State Government keeping in
view the directions issued by the High Court
9312.2014WP.odt
time to time as mentioned in the said
Resolution so as to bring transparency in the
selection process and strict adherence to the
provisions of Section 5 (1) of the said Act.
19. In the afore-mentioned clause 4 of
the said Government Resolution, it is
provided that, the concerned institution
should apply under Section 5 (1) of the said
Act to the Education Officer/Education
Inspector/Deputy Director of Education, as
the case may be. In case there are surplus
teachers on the roll of the concerned
authority, the said authority shall ask the
management to absorb those surplus employees,
who are on roll of said authority. It is
also necessary to get roster verified before
such permission is sought for appointments on
the sanctioned posts by the management.
There are detailed procedural aspects which
are mentioned in clause 3 of the said
Government Resolution. The clause 4 of the
9312.2014WP.odt
said Government Resolution specifically
provides that, once permission to advertise
the post is granted by the concerned
Competent Officer, the society or institution
shall complete exercise of the appointment on
the said post/posts within two months from
the date of granting such permission. It is
provided in the said Government Resolution
that the advertisement should be given in two
news paper, widely circulated and having the
highest sale in the vicinity, and such
advertisement should be given in detail.
There should not be variation in the
information given in the said advertisement
about factual position.
20. In the facts of the present case,
the advertisement was given by the concerned
Headmaster, in the news paper 'Dainik
Mukhnayak' Times. Respondent no.4 in his
additional affidavit has specifically stated
that, when the information was sought from
9312.2014WP.odt
the District Information Officer, Nanded,
whether the 'Dainik Muknayak' Times is
registered with the said office, the said
authority replied that the said news paper is
not registered news paper in Nanded District.
There is no denial to the said fact in the
reply that the said news paper is not
registered with the Competent Authority by
respondent nos.5 to 7. As already observed,
the present case stands on its peculiar facts
inasmuch as there are specific allegations
made by the petitioner that, respondent nos.5
and 6 are relatives of the Keshavrao Sonbarao
Tawade and Vithal Marotrao Tawade.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case
reasonable inference can be drawn that, the
advertisement was given in such a news paper,
which is not widely circulated, and
registered with the Competent Authority with
a view to ensure that the candidates, who are
fully qualified and more meritorious, and
9312.2014WP.odt
desirous for appointment on the said posts,
should be kept outside the selection process
so as to ensure appointments of respondent
nos. 5 and 6. It is a matter of serious
concern from the view point of public at
large that, though there may be hundreds of
unemployed youths/candidates, who are
possessing requisite qualifications,
necessary for the appointment on the said
posts, and desirous for applying for
appointments on the said posts, which were
advertised, were not perhaps aware about the
said advertisement, since same was not
published in the news papers, which are
widely circulated and having maximum sale in
the vicinity and registered with Competent
Authority. As a result, as contended by
respondent no.7, there were only 4/5
candidates who were interviewed by the
Headmaster/Local Managing Committee. It is
crystal clear that, the entire alleged
9312.2014WP.odt
selection process was done in such a
surreptitious manner so as to create
conditions favourable to respondent nos. 5
and 6, who are relatives of the Keshavrao
Sonbarao Tawade who is claiming to be the
President and Shri Vithal Marotrao Tawade,
who is claiming to be the Secretary of the
said trust. Ultimately, the post sanctioned
by the State Government must be advertised in
accordance with procedure so that all
desirous and qualified candidates can apply
for said posts, and there should be complete
transparency in the selection process, which
would inspire public confidence in public
employment.
21. As already observed, there is total
non adherence to the provisions of Section 5
(1) of the MEPS Act, and also to the
provisions of the Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012, referred herein above, and
therefore, the said act of the Local
9312.2014WP.odt
Management/Headmaster to exclude large number
of eligible candidate by not advertising the
posts in leading news papers, which are
widely circulated and sold on large scale in
the vicinity. Therefore, such act of the
Local Management not only amounts to
irregularities but amounts to indulging into
illegalities, and same cannot be countenanced
in public domain. If such acts are allowed to
continue merely because by this time
respondent nos.5 and 6 have completed more
than 3 years service, would be adding to the
premium on dishonesty and illegalities and
also cause damage to the 'public interest'
inasmuch as by not giving advertisement in
two leading news paper, which are widely
circulated and sold in the vicinity, and also
not adhering to the provisions of the MEPS
Act and Rules and also provisions in
Government Resolution, the respondents made
every endeavour to see that selection process
9312.2014WP.odt
is completed in surreptitious manner so as
to ensure the appointments of respondent nos.
5 and 6, who are relatives of Keshavrao
Sonbarao Tawade, who is claiming to be the
President and Vithal Marotrao Tawade, who is
claiming to be the Secretary of the said
trust.
22. In our considered opinion, neither
the respondent school management, nor the
Government Authorities adhered to the
provisions of Section 5 (1) and also to the
provisions of the Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012. The Deputy Director of Education,
who was supposed to take decision on the
representation of the petitioner within 6
weeks from the date of directions issued by
the High Court in Writ Petition No.7559/2013,
which was disposed of on 24.09.2013, in utter
disregard to the said directions stipulating
time limit did not take decision within 6
weeks. He heard the parties on 26th August,
9312.2014WP.odt
2014 and took decision on 11.09.2014. We
have carefully perused the proceedings
conducted on 26.08.2014. Upon careful perusal
of the said proceedings, it is abundantly
clear that the Deputy Director of Eduction
had made farce of hearing and taking decision
by merely recording the submissions of the
parties, and in the end, without assigning
any reasons, has straightway recorded the
conclusions. The conclusions reached by the
Deputy Director of Education did not refer to
the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the said
Act, and also to the provisions of the
Government Resolution, which contemplates
giving advertisement in two widely circulated
news papers. The Deputy Director of Education
did not take into consideration, the
provision which mandate that before
advertising the post, as a matter of fact
whether the respondents have verified the
roster from B.C.Cell, and the specific
9312.2014WP.odt
allegation of the petitioner that the
respondent nos.5 and 6 to whom the approval
is granted by the respondent Deputy Director
of Education are relatives of the Keshavrao
Sonbarao Tawade, who is claiming to be the
President and Vithal Marotrao Tawade, who is
claiming to be the Secretary of the said
trust. Therefore, in our considered view, the
Deputy Director of Education consciously or
subconsciously in breach of the provisions of
Section 5 (1) of the MEPS Act, and also the
aforementioned Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012 has granted approval to the
appointment of respondent nos. 5 and 6 as
Shikshan Sevak for three years. Therefore,
the Director of Education deserves to be
directed to cause enquiry about the conduct
of the Deputy Director of Education, who has
not followed the provisions of Section 5 (1)
of the MEPS Act and also the provisions of
the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012.
9312.2014WP.odt
We do not propose to enter into disputed
questions of fact, which are raised by the
petitioner, including the preparation of
separate muster roll for signing by
respondent nos. 5 and 6, not adhering to the
reservations and preparing false and
fabricated documents in respect of
appointment of respondent nos. 5 and 6. On
undisputed position, which is discussed in
the foregoing paragraphs, violation of the
statutory provisions under Section 5 (1) of
the MEPS Act and also the Government
Resolution, which was issued keeping in view
the directions given by the High Court to the
State Government to streamline the procedure
for the appointments of the employees in the
institutions so as to bring complete
transparency and accountability, the
Headmaster giving go bye to the afore-
mentioned provisions and excluding, may be
hundreds of desirous candidates, who
9312.2014WP.odt
possessed requisite qualifications for the
post by way of not giving advertisement in
widely circulated two news paper, ensured
selection of respondent nos.5 and 6.
23. As already observed, merely because,
respondent nos.5 and 6 have completed three
years period, cannot be reason to confirm
their services, when their appointments are
made by committing illegalities and
irregularities in violation of the statutory
provisions. As per routine procedure, the
grant of approval is at two stages. First,
the approval is given at the stage when the
appointments are made and after completion of
three years period after appointments,
another approval is given, so that the status
of appointee from Shikshan Sevak undergoes
change and appointee becomes Assistant
Teacher. In the facts of the present case, on
considering the documents placed on record in
its entirety, it does not appear that, second
9312.2014WP.odt
approval is granted in requisite form by the
concerned respondent authorities to
respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is difficult to
fathom that only 4/5 candidates applied as
against three posts, which were advertised by
the Headmaster when the thousands of
unemployed youths, who are qualified for the
post and eligible and desirous for the
appointments available in the society, would
keep themselves away from participating in
selection process in case they had knowledge
of advertising such posts in widely
circulated news papers. It also appears that
respondent no.6 is given workload of
political science and she is asked to
complete post graduation in the said subject
in future. If the advertisement would have
been given in two widely circulated news
paper, having highest sale in the vicinity,
many more candidates who are having degree of
political science ought to have applied for
9312.2014WP.odt
the said post meant for said subject, and
therefore, there was no question of seeking
bond from the appointed candidates that they
will subsequently acquire the requisite
qualifications for teaching political science
or any other subject.
24.
As already observed, we are
disturbed by the conduct of the Deputy
Director of Education, who made farce of
enquiry and did not adhere to the directions
issued by the High Court to take decision on
the representation filed by the petitioner
within 6 weeks and the decision was taken
belatedly, and also without answering the
legal question raised by the petitioner in
his representation.
25. In the light of the discussion in
the foregoing paragraphs, in our considered
view, the intervention of this Court under
extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is warranted
9312.2014WP.odt
in the peculiar facts of the case, since the
appointments of respondent nos.5 and 6 are
made giving go bye to the provisions of
Section 5 (1) of the MEPS Act and also the
provisions of the Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012, and therefore, we are inclined
to pass the following order:
ig ORDER
i] The Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause-B and C. The order dated
11.09.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 Deputy
Director of Education, thereby confirming the
approval granted to the appointment of
respondent nos.5 and 6 on 10.08.2012 on the
post of Shikshan Sevak in respondent no.7
school is quashed and set aside. Consequently
the appointment order dated 29.02.2012 of the
respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of
Shikshan Sevak in the respondent school is
also quashed and set aside.
9312.2014WP.odt
ii] We direct respondent no.7 and State
Authorities to advertise the said posts
within 3 weeks and ensure that the
appointments are made within 8 weeks from
today so as to avoid any inconvenience to the
students. However, after adhering to the
provisions of Section 5 (1) of the MEPS Act
and also the Government Resolution dated
06.02.2012. The amount towards remuneration,
if any, paid to the respondent nos.5 and 6
shall not be recovered. In case respondent
nos. 5 and 6 are desirous to apply after re-
advertising the posts, they are not precluded
from participating in the selection process,
if they are otherwise eligible and possess
requisite qualifications necessary for the
appointment on the said posts.
iii] We direct the Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune to cause enquiry
about the conduct of respondent no.3 Deputy
Director of Education [Shri.V.K.Khandke], in
9312.2014WP.odt
the light of the discussion in the foregoing
paragraphs and after giving full opportunity
to defend himself, and shall take appropriate
decision/action, if warranted, depending upon
the outcome of the enquiry in accordance with
the Rules/procedure established and as per
permissible in law as expeditiously as
possible within three months from today.
iv] Rule is made absolute on above
terms. The Petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
v] The Director of Education shall send
compliance report of enquiry and decision /
action taken to the registry of this Court on
or before 30.11.2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
[P.R.BORA] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
