Bombay High Court
Manoj Vijayrao Asarkar Amravati & ... vs Education Officer(Sec.) Z.P. ... on 8 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.1086.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1086 OF 2002.
1) Manoj s/o Vijayrao Asarkar,
aged 26 years, Occ. Service as
Peon, R/o Vidarbha Mills New
Colony, At & Post : Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, Dist. Amravati,
2) Purushottam s/o Sudhakarrao Chobe,
aged 29 years, Occ. Service as
Peon, R/o Vidarbha Mills Old
Colony, At & Post : Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, Dist. Amravati. ..... PETITIONERS.
....Versus....
1) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
2) Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati,
3) School Committee, Subodh High
School (Vidarbha Mills), Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, District
Amravati, through Ex-Officio
Secretary/Head Master. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate
for the petitioners,
Mr. N.R. Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2017.
2 WP.1086.02
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , J.)
1] Heard Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the
petitioners and Mr. N.R. Rode, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. Nobody appears for
respondent no.3.
2] Petitioners were duly selected after advertisement dated
4.7.2001 as Peons and appointment orders were issued to them on
20.7.2001. This appointment was also approved on probation by
respondent no.1 Education Officer vide order dated 28.9.2001. The
said authority, however, on 21.2.2002 informed petitioners that for
recruitment respondent no.3 management ought to have obtained
necessary sanction from State Government and as that sanction was
not obtained, the approval granted earlier was cancelled. Thus,
orders of approval dated 28.9.2001 were cancelled.
3] In view of this action on part of respondent no.1,
respondent no.3 management passed a resolution on 28.2.2002 and
decided to put an end to services of petitioners. Orders of termination
dated 28.2.2002 were accordingly issued.
3 WP.1086.02
4] In present Writ Petition filed before this Court on 11.3.2002
this Court while issuing Rule, continued interim order granted earlier
on 19.3.2002, with the result, petitioners are even today in
employment.
5] Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the
petitioners, submits that when there was proper advertisement and
Education authorities granted approval to recruit against vacant posts
in open category, cancellation or withdrawal of approval without any
opportunity to petitioners is bad. He further submits that as there is
no power to exercise review, Education Officer himself could not have
recalled the approval granted.
6] Mr. N.R. Rode, learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 &
2, submits that termination ought to have been questioned before
School Tribunal in view of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. He
further states that the respondent no.3 management did not obtain
necessary approval from State Government and hence, respondent
no.1 who is subordinate to State Government had no option but to
recall the approval.
4 WP.1086.02
7] Facts, therefore, are not in dispute. On record our
attention has been invited to letter dated 30.6.2001 sent by
respondent no.1 to management permitting it to publish
advertisement for effecting recruitment to the two posts of Peon.
Thus, after getting due permission from Education Department,
advertisement was published on 4.7.2001 and then appointment
orders were also issued on probation. Approval was given on
28.9.2001 on probation.
8] Cancellation because of alleged absence of approval from
State Government in this backdrop cannot be a just and and valid
reason.
9] Considering the fact that termination orders are issued on
28.2.2002 and present Writ Petition is pending thereafter with this
Court for last about 15 years, we are not inclined to accept objection
of learned A.G.P. that matter should be sent to School Tribunal.
10] We quash and set aside the orders dated 21.2.2002
cancelling approval given to appointment of petitioners and the orders
of termination dated 28.2.2002 issued to respective petitioners by
respondent no.3. Petitioners are accordingly reinstated and shall
5 WP.1086.02
continue in service as per law.
11] Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
