Bombay High Court
Nilesh Subhash Jawanjal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 14 September, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 J-WP-3057-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3057/2017
1. Nilesh Subhash Jawanjal,
Aged about : 30 years,
R/o At Post : Deulgaon-Mali,
Taluka : Mehkar,
District - Buldhana 443301.
2. Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Shikshan Sanstha,
At Post : Deulgaon-Mali,
Taluka Mehkar,
District - Buldhana 443301,
through its Secretary.
3. Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Vidyalay,
At Post : Deulgaon-Mali,
Taluka Mehkar,
District - Buldhana 443301,
through its Head-Master. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. K. S. Joshi, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3381/2017
1. Satish Narayan Dhudat,
Aged about : 27 years,
R/o At Jamgaon, Post : Anjani B.K.,
Taluka : Mehkar,
District - Buldhana 443301.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:28 :::
2 J-WP-3057-17.odt
2. Gandhi Smarak Shikshan Sanstha,
Taluka Mehkar,
District - Buldhana 443301,
through its President.
3. Tryambak Shivram Saoji
Janta High School,
Taluka Mehkar,
District - Buldhana 443301,
through its Head-Master. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. K. S. Joshi, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
14/09/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. The respective parties pointed out that at Bombay and
at Aurangabad High Court, this Court has already set aside the orders
passed by the Education Officer observing that the Education Officer
does not have power of review. Accordingly, the State Government has
3 J-WP-3057-17.odt
taken out a Government Resolution on 23 rd August, 2017 and as per
that Government Resolution, all such powers with the Education Officer
have been made over to next higher / superior officer.
2. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submit that the
orders refusing approval in their matter, should be quashed and set
aside as State accepts lack of power with the Education Officer.
3. Mrs. Joshi, learned Additional Government Pleader
pointed out that as grants are disbursed by the State Government, the
approval needs to be granted as per law by the same authority.
4. Today, in Writ Petition Nos.519/2017, 2237/2017 and
1066/2017, we have passed orders which throw light on situation
prevailing in the education sector.
5. It is apparent that with proper website and due
diligence, a full-proof approval / permission to recruit can be given.
This is possible as vacancies are well known in advance and existing
staff is also within knowledge. Hence, roster point is pre-fixed. Grant of
permission to recruit contingent upon verification of roster point,
availability of surplus teacher or then the strength of students and the
procedure so far followed and operating, has created a mess in which
ultimately a teacher is made to suffer.
6. Such teacher is not a party to permission granted to
recruit and in response to advertisement, he applies and gets selected.
Question of granting approval arises after he puts in 2 - 3 years of
4 J-WP-3057-17.odt
service and at that juncture, this procedural lacuna are resorted to
accept it. We have admitted Writ Petition No.1877/2017 precisely on
this point.
7. Hence, in the light of the orders passed earlier and the
circular dated 23rd August, 2017, we quash and set aside all the orders
impugned in this petition cancelling the approval to respective
petitioners. This circular dated 23 rd August, 2017 is marked as Exh."X"
on record, for identification.
8. Insofar as request of Mrs. Joshi, learned Additional
Government Pleader to permit the Competent Authority to verify the
cases again is concerned, in the wake of above observations, we will
permit such review or re-verification only if facts so justify. Authority
undertaking review shall keep in mind the service put in by the
concerned teacher / non-teaching employee and effect of cancellation of
approval on him and his dependents. Only in compelling situation, such
orders of cancellation shall be passed. Such orders of cancellation, if
passed, shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks after its
service upon concerned teacher / non-teaching employee.
9. We also direct the respondent-State to evolve a policy
in which once permission to recruit is granted and recruitment is found
to be valid, there will be no occasion or scope for seeking further
approval. Recruitment itself shall be after such approval. The policy
shall be accordingly worked out, within next six months.
5 J-WP-3057-17.odt
10. As the orders of cancellation are withdrawn, salary of
respective petitioner shall be released forthwith without any delay.
Petitions are accordingly allowed. However, in these matters as
Government itself has accepted the absence of power in Education
Officer, we refrain from imposing any costs.
11. As at Bombay, similar orders have been withdrawn by
the State Government and at Aurangabad Bench, orders have been
quashed, we quash and set aside all such orders.
12. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
