Bombay High Court
Shri. Balmukund Rathi Shikshan ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 5 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 6550.16 (J) .odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6550 OF 2016
1] Shri. Balmukund Rathi Shikshan
Sanstha, Shirajgaon Kasba,
Tahsil-Chandur Bazar,
District-Amravati, through its
President.
2] Balmukund Rathi Vidyalaya,
Shirajgaon Kasba, Tahsil-Chandur
Bazar, District-Amravati, through
its Headmaster. .. Petitioners
.. Versus ..
1] State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. .. Respondents
..........
Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioners,
Smt. G.R. Tiwari, A.G.P. for the respondents.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 05, 2016.
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.
By this writ petition, the petitioners-institution challenges the
orders of the respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, dated 14.9.2016 and 15.9.2016 asking the petitioners-institution to
absorb two Assistant Teachers in the school run by the petitioners-institution.
Shri Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioners-institution
states that the institution run by the petitioners is a minority institution and
the State Government cannot direct the minority institution to absorb the
surplus employees of other schools unless the minority institution concurs for
the absorption. It is stated that the issue involved in this case stand answered
in favour of the petitioner by the judgment reported in 2014 (4) ABR 521
(Canossa Society, Mumbai .vs. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Pune).
Smt. Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the respondents states that by the impugned communications,
dated 14.9.2016 and 15.9.2016, the petitioners were asked to absorb the
surplus teachers in their school and the minority-certificate has been issued in
favour of the petitioners on 23.9.2016. It is stated that since impugned orders
were passed before the issuance of said certificate, the petitioners would be
required to absorb the teachers in the school.
The minority institutions cannot be compelled to absorb the
surplus teachers from other schools in their schools. It is held by this Court in
the judgment reported in 2014 (4) ABR 521 that a minority institution cannot
be directed by the State Government to absorb surplus employees from other
schools unless the minority institution concurs for absorption. Admittedly, the
petitioners-institution has been conferred with the minority status. If that be
so, it cannot be effectively submitted on behalf of the respondents that merely
because the impugned orders were passed a few days before the minority
certificate was granted in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners would be
liable to absorb the surplus teachers in the school. Admittedly, the petitioners
have been conferred with minority status and the minority institution would
not be liable to absorb the surplus employees in their school unless it agrees
for the absorption.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and for the reasons recorded in
the judgment, reported in 2014 (4) ABR 521, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
