Bombay High Court
National Education Society, ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. ... on 17 April, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp5201.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 5201 of 2016
1. National Education Society,
Khamgaon,
through its President/Secretary,
Office at Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldana.
2. Sumit Shrikant Shah,
aged 37 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Rallies Plot,
Opp : Tata Salt Godown,
Tq. Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldana. ..... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Vocational Education & Training
Directorate, 3, Mahapalika
Marg, Letter Box No.10036,
Mumbai.
2. Assistant Director of Vocational
Education & Training,
Regional Office at Morshi Road,
Amravati, Tq. & Distt.
Amravati.
3. District Vocational & Training
Officer, Buldana,
Tq. & Distt. Buldana. .... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2017 00:47:33 :::
wp5201.16
2
*****
Mr. P. S. Patil, Adv., for the petitioners.
Mr. Dhumale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 17th April, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.]:
01. Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.
02. The petitioners are aggrieved by the communication dated
22nd July, 2015, by which the respondent no.2 has refused to grant
approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.2 on the ground that
petitioner no.2 was appointed without obtaining prior permission of
respondent no.3 for filling said post.
03. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that it is running a Junior
College which is recognized as a minority institute. On account of
retirement of the earlier incumbent, the petitioner no.1 sought
wp5201.16
permission to fill the said post of Junior Clerk from the respondent
no.3. After waiting for some time, the petitioner no.1 issued an
advertisement, pursuant to which, the petitioner no.2, who was duly
qualified, came to be appointed. By the impugned order, the
respondent no.2 has refused to approve the appointment of the
petitioner no.2 on the ground that its prior permission was not taken.
04. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that
the petitioner no.1 is a minority institute. It had sought prior
permission for filling the post of Junior Clerk; but as there was no
response from the respondent no.3, it went ahead with the recruitment
process. He submitted that the petitioner no.2 was otherwise duly
qualified and the respondent no.2 could not have refused the approval
only on the ground that prior permission was not obtained. He relied
upon the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 3707 of
2013 [Parbhani Education Society Vs. State of Mah. & another;
decided on 2nd September, 2013] and submitted that necessary
approval deserves to be granted.
05. Shri Dhumale, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the
respondents, supported the impugned order. He submitted that as per
Govt. Resolution dated 6th February, 2012, it was necessary for the
wp5201.16
petitioner no.1 to have obtained prior permission before filling the said
post. As the appointment was made in contravention of said Govt.
Resolution, the approval was not granted.
06. It is not in dispute that the petitioner no.1 is a minority
institute. On that count, there would be no question of absorption of
surplus employees from other schools. It is further evident from the
record that an application for grant of permission was moved by the
petitioner no.1. But, before any decision was taken thereon, the post
was advertised and filled. A somewhat similar situation was
considered by the Division Bench in Parbhani Education Society
[supra]. In para 9 thereof, it was observed as under:-
"9. The petitioner submits that Shikshan Sevaks
appointed by it possess all the qualifications and satisfy
the eligibility criteria according to law and as such
refusal to grant approval to their appointments pursuant
to proposals submitted by the petitioner institution, for
the reason that no prior permission was sought for the
advertisement, tantamounts to infraction of its rights
and privileges to appoint teachers of its choice. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has a right to
appoint persons, who in its opinion, are better suited
culturally and linguistically compatible with the objects
and aims of their institution."
07. We find that the petitioner no.2 is otherwise duly qualified to
hold the post of Junior Clerk. Considering the facts of the present case
wp5201.16
that an application seeking permission to fill the said post was made
on 26th February, 2014, after which the advertisement came to be
issued on 6th August, 2014 which is almost after six months, by
following the observations made in the decision referred to herein
above, we are inclined to hold in favour of petitioners.
08. In view of aforesaid, the communication dated 22nd July,
2015 is quashed and set aside. As the petitioner no.2 is duly qualified
to hold the post of Junior Clerk, the respondent no.3 is directed to
grant approval to his appointment from 22nd August, 2014. Necessary
orders be issued within a period of four weeks from today.
09. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
