Ku.Shobha Sadashiv Khasare vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Dept.Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5849 Bom

                                 1
                                                            wp1192.02.odt

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

                    Writ Petition No.1192 of 2002


  Ku. Shobha d/o Sadashiv Khasare,
  Aged about 40 years,
  Occupation - Service,
  Resident of Pusla, Taluka Warud,
  District Amravati.                                ... Petitioner

       Versus

  1. The State of Maharashtra,
     through the Secretary,
     Department of Education,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

  2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
     Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
     Taluka and District Amravati.

  3. Pusla Vibhag Sudhar Samiti,
     Pusla, Taluka Warud, District Amravati,
     through its President.

  4. The Head Master,
     Prabhat High School, Pusla,
     Taluka Warud, District Amravati.               ...Respondents


  Smt. R.D. Raskar, Advocate for Petitioner.
  Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 
  and 2.
  Smt. B.P. Maldhure, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.




::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:03:57 :::
                                     2
                                                                  wp1192.02.odt

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

                Dated  : 10    August, 2017
                            th
                                            


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

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The approval to the appointment of the petitioner was

revoked by the Education Officer by an order dated 21-2-2002 on the

ground that before making appointment, the approval of the State

Government was not obtained. In the reply filed by the respondents,

the stand is taken that 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 ban

wp1192.02.odt

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.

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 revocation of approval is

also passed without hearing the petitioner.

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

order dated 21-2-2002 passed by the respondent No.2-Education

Officer, is hereby quashed and set aside, and the order

dated 26-9-2001 passed by the Education Officer is restored. The

petitioner is in service by virtue of the interim order passed by this

wp1192.02.odt

Court. Hence, the services of the petitioner shall be continued in

accordance with law.

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

costs.

                         JUDGE.                               JUDGE.
   Lanjewar