Bombay High Court
Gondwan Shikshan Prasarak ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 2 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 5772/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5772/2016
1. Gondwan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Chandrapur, a Public Trust registered
under the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
1950, and a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860,
having its office at 'Matoshri', Yamuna
Nagar, Late Adv.B.S. Khanke premises,
Tukum, Chandrapur, through its General
Secretary Suryakant Bhagwantrao Khanke.
2. Matoshri Uchha Prathamik Shala, Tukum,
Chandrapur, through its Headmistress
Mrs.Sandhya w/o Pradip Wadhai,
Chandrapur Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur.
3. Mrs. Sandhya w/o Pradip Wadhai,
aged about 51 years, Occupation - Service,
resident of Near new Gurudwara road,
Tukum, Chandrapur, Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department OF School Education & Sports,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur
through Chief Executive Officer, Chandrapur.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
4. Ram s/o narsingrao Garkar (Kamble),
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Chandrapur, Tq. & dist. Chandrapur.
5. Sanjay Vasantrao Dorlikar,
Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.P. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.M. Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.
CORAM :SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2016.
WP 5772/16 2 Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners impugn the order of the
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur cancelling the
approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 on the post of
headmistress.
3. The petitioner no.1-Society runs the petitioner no.2-School in
which the petitioner no.3 was appointed as a headmistress. The
Education Officer (Primary) had granted approval to the appointment of
the petitioner no.3 on the post of headmistress on 13.08.1999. According
to the petitioners, after some show cause notices and reminders were
issued by the management and the petitioner no.3 to an assistant teacher,
Ms Pusam, the said teacher made complaints to the education authorities.
The said teacher went on hunger strike and threatened the education
authorities. According to the petitioners, in view of the complaints made
by Ms Pusam and the threats by her that she would go on hunger strike,
the Education Officer (Primary) passed the impugned order cancelling the
approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 on the post of
headmistress. The said order is impugned by the petitioners in the instant
petition.
WP 5772/16 3 Judgment
4. Shri Khajanchi, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the education officer was not justified in cancelling the
approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 solely on the basis of
the complaints made by Ms Pusam. It is stated that the management was
taking appropriate action against Ms Pusam and it was a matter between
the management and the said assistant teacher. It is stated that merely
on the basis of the complaints made by Ms Pusam and the threats given
by her that she would go on hunger strike, the education officer could not
have cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.3. It
is stated that the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error and
the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the Education Officer
(Primary), submitted that since Ms Pusam had made several complaints
against the management and the petitioner no.3-Headmistress and since
the petitioner no.3 did not attend the office of the education officer
though she was called for the meeting in the matter between Ms Pusam
and the management, the education officer has passed the impugned
order. It is, however, fairly stated that there is no provision under
which the approval to the appointment of a headmistress could be
cancelled on the basis of the complaints of an employee-Assistant
Teacher.
WP 5772/16 4 Judgment
6. As rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioners,
the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error and the same is
liable to be set aside. There is no authority in the Education
Officer (Primary) to cancel the approval to the appointment of the
headmistress merely because there is a dispute between the
management and the headmistress on one side and an assistant
teacher Ms Pusam on the other. The dispute between the
management and Ms Pusam could have been solved at their level and
could have been decided by the competent courts or authorities. The
education officer did not have jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute.
The education officer could not have cancelled the approval to the
appointment of the petitioner no.3 merely because the petitioner no.3 did
not attend the office of the education officer for discussing on the issue
between the management and Ms Pusam. The impugned order could not
have been passed merely because the assistant teacher was
threatening the education officer that she would go on hunger
strike. The impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set
aside.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
WP 5772/16 5 Judgment
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
