Pankaj S/O. Krishnrarao Wagh vs State Of Maharashtra & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5848 Bom

                                  1
                                                              wp2159.02.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                    Writ Petition No.2159 of 2002

  Pankaj s/o Krishnarao Wagh,
  Aged about 25 years,
  Occupation - Service,
  Resident of Amravati,
  District Amravati.                                ... Petitioner

       Versus

  1. The State of Maharashtra,
     through Secretary,
     School Education Department,
     Mantralaya, Bombay.

  2. Education Officer (Secondary),
     Zilla Parishad, Amravati, 
     Dist. Amravati.

  3. Shri Saraswati Vidya Mandir,
     Ganoja (Devi), Tahsil Matculi (Jain),
     District Amravati, through its
     Administrator/Secretary.

  4. Head Master, Mahasaraswati Vidyalaya,
     Ganoja Devi, Tahsil Bhatculi (Jain),
     District Amravati.                             ...Respondents



  None for Petitioner.
  Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 
  and 2.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.

                Dated  : 10    August, 2017
                            th
                                            






                                                                  wp2159.02.odt

   Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. None for the petitioner. Heard the learned Additional

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The approval to the appointment of the petitioner was

refused by the Education Officer by an order dated 27-4-2002 on the

ground that before making appointment, the approval of the State

Government was not obtained. According to the respondents, there

was a ban on recruitment and, therefore, without permission of the

State Government, the recruitment was not permissible.

3. Similar issue was involved in Writ Petition No.1280 of 2002

along with connected matter, decided on 30-5-2017; and Writ Petition

No.1345 of 2002, decided on 7-1-2016. This Court has allowed those

petitions and set aside the order dated 21-2-2002 revoking the order

of approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner. This Court

has restored the approval granted by the respondent No.2-Education

Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad. The Court has held that the bank

was not applicable, as it was not to the notice of the respondent No.2

while granting approval. The controversy is, therefore, covered by

both these decisions.

wp2159.02.odt

4. Apart from above, in the present matter, we find that the

petitioner was appointed in the manner prescribed under the

provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, more particularly

Section 5 therein. Before proceeding to effect recruitment, the

permission of the Education Officer was also obtained, as the post was

found to be sanctioned. It is not the ground stated by the respondent

2-Education Officer in the order impugned that there was any

deficiency in following the mandatory provisions of the said Act and

the Rules framed thereunder. The order of refusal of approval is also

passed without hearing the petitioner.

5. In view of above, we allow this petition. The impugned

orders dated 27-4-2002 and 18-5-2002 passed by the respondent

No.2-Education Officer, are hereby quashed and set aside. The

petitioner is in service by virtue of interim order passed by this Court.

Hence, the services of the petitioner shall be continued in accordance

with law.

wp2159.02.odt

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to

costs.

                         JUDGE.                     JUDGE.
   Lanjewar