Bombay High Court
Khushal Sadashiv Medhe And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 March, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp 3719.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3719 OF 2016
1 Khushal S/o Sadashiv Medhe
Age: 23 years, Occu: service,
R/o At Post Ambedkar Nagar,
Faizpur, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon
2 Aakash S/o Kailash Sali
Age: 24 years, occu: service,
R/o Shriram Peth, at post Faizpur
Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through Its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2 The Deputy Director of
Education, Nashik, Dist. Nashik
3 Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
4 Municipal High School & Junior College
Faizpur, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon
through Its President School Committee
5 Municipal High School & Junior College,
Faizpur, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon
through Its Head Master Respondents
Mrs. S.P. Mahajan advocate for the petitioners
Mrs. R.P. Gaur Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to
Mr. R.S. Deshmukh advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5
_______________
{2}
wp 3719.16.odt
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
P.R. BORA, JJ
(Date : 15TH March, 2017.)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Heard.
2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final disposal at admission stage.
3 The petitioners are praying for issuance of directions to
respondent No.3 to consider the proposal for according approval
to their appointment as Peons in the school, operated by
respondent No.5 Municipal Council. The petitioners are also
praying for issuance of direction to respondents No.4 and 5 to
forward the proposal to respondent No.3 for according approval to
their appointment.
4 The petitioner No.1 belongs to scheduled caste category
whereas petitioner No.2 belongs to open category. They have
been appointed as Peon in respondent No.5 school operated by
respondent No.4 on 14.9.2015. According to the petitioners, their
appointments have been made against clear vacancies and that
{3}
wp 3719.16.odt
the Municipal School has complied with the requirements for filling
up backlog vacancies. The proposal tendered by respondent No.4
school for according approval to their appointment has not been
considered mainly on the ground that the appointments have
been made during the operation of the ban in respect of making
the appointment imposed by the State Government and secondly,
no prior permission has been secured from the Committee under
the Chairmanship of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad,
Jalgaon before making appointment of the petitioners.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited
our attention to the Government Resolution dated 20.6.2014
where under, the ban in respect of making appointment to the
post of teachers and non-teaching staff imposed vide Govt.
resolution dated 2.5.2012 has been lifted and the State
Government has taken a decision to permit appointment of
teachers and non-teaching staff as against the basic vacancies.
The petitioners contend that, they have been appointed against
the sanctioned posts and in observance of the procedure
prescribed for making appointment of non-teaching staff.
6 Another objection raised, is in respect of not securing
permission from the Committee before making appointment of the
{4}
wp 3719.16.odt
petitioners. It is pointed out that, as many as eight
communications have been issued from 20.3.2015 to December,
2015 by the President of the school Committee earlier, for
permission before making appointment. However, none of the
communications has been answered by respondents No.2 & 3. It
is also not the case of the respondent Education Officer that the
school was communicated list of surplus teachers and there was
an insistence for accommodating surplus teachers by the
Education Officer and that the Municipal Council has failed to
abide by such instructions. On the contrary, the Education Officer
never communicated list of surplus teachers, nor instructed the
Municipal Council School to accommodate surplus teachers or
non-teaching staff in the school. School Management Committee
of respondent No.4 cannot be therefore blamed for violating the
guidelines or the norms in respect of making appointment to the
school operated by respondent No.4 municipal Council. In fact, it
was open for the Education Officer to communicate the list of
teaching or non-teaching staff for being accommodated against
the existing vacancies in the school. In view of the failure of the
Education Officer to follow the procedure, petitioners cannot be
put to any disadvantageous situation. As has been recorded
above, the school committee sought permission from the
{5}
wp 3719.16.odt
respondents for making appointments against reserved vacancies.
However, none of the applications tendered by the school
committee since 2013 were attended by the respondents.
7 In this view of the matter, the directions, as requested by
the petitioners for consideration of their proposal for according
approval to their appointments, need to be issued. Respondent
No.3 is directed to consider the proposal for according approval to
the appointment of the petitioners and pass appropriate order, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from
today. The proposal shall not be rejected merely on the ground
that no permission has been sought before making appointment
or that the appointments are made during period of operation of
ban. It would be open for respondent No.3 to examine as to
whether the appointments of the petitioners are against existing
vacancies and as to whether requirement of back-log has been
fulfilled by respondent No.4 school.
8 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.
9 There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M. BORDE, J)
vbd
