Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 7459 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 September, 2017
{1}
wp 1948.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1948 OF 2017
Rohidas S/o Babasaheb Waghmare,
Age: 26 years, Occu: service,
R/o Village Shahapur, Tq. Ambad
District: Jalna
At present R/o village Gadewadi
Tq. Shevgaon, District: Ahmednagar Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2 The Deputy Director of Education,
Pune region, Pune
3 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar
District: Ahmednagar
4 Rajashri Shri Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Burudgaon Road,
Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar
Registered Trust: Through its Secretary
5 The New English School, Gadewadi,
Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar
Through Its Head Master Respondents
{2} wp 1948.17.odt
Mr.V.H. Dighe advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.B. Joshi Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. K.M. Gawade Patil advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 _______________
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ
(Date: September 22 nd 2017)
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Heard.
2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final decision at admission stage.
3 The petitioner is seeking quashsment of the order passed
by the Education Officer - Secondary on 24.12.2014, refusing to
grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a clerk.
4 The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste (SC) category
and has been appointed as against reserve seat, prescribed for
the aforesaid reserve category, in observance of the procedure
prescribed under law. The petitioner contends that, the
management, before proceeding to fill up the vacancy, tendered
an application to the Education Officer, Zilha parishad, seeking
permission to issue an advertisement. It is contended that, no
{3} wp 1948.17.odt
response was received by the management to the
communication dated 16.5.2012, seeking permission to issue an
advertisement. As such, the management proceeded to issue
advertisement for the purpose of making appointment to the
post of Junior clerk from amongst SC category. It is calendered
that, the petitioner has been appointed by observing the due
procedure by the management in the year 2012. A proposal was
tendered seeking approval to the appointment, which was not
considered at the relevant time. The proposal tendered by the
management in the year 2014, seeking approval to the
appointment of the petitioner has been turned down by the
Education Officer - Secondary, for the reason that the
appointment of the petitioner is during ban period prescribed
under the Government Resolution dated 2.5.2012, as well as the
institution has not secured permission before proceeding to fill
up the post. It is contended that there were surplus employees
and that the Education Department could have directed the
management to absorb them while filling up the vacancies. The
petitioner contends that his appointment has been made during
the drive undertaken to fill-up the backlog vacancies. It is
contended that the Government Resolution dated 5.2.2012 does
not apply in case of backlog vacancies.
{4} wp 1948.17.odt
5 The petitioner placed reliance on a Judgment delivered by
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.10580/2015 in the matter of Sau Revati Kusha Wagh &
another versus The State of Maharashtra along with the
companion Writ Petitions on 9.3.2017. The Division Bench
dealing with the matter has placed reliance on the earlier
Judgment of this Court in the matter of A.N. Dhale versus
State of Maharashtra and others (2016 (5) MhLJ 742) and
arrived at a conclusion that the Government Resolution dated
2.5.2012 issued by the School Education Department does not
apply in respect of backlog vacancies. It is recorded in the
Judgment that before issuance of the Government Resolution
dated 2.5.2012, the State Government has issued a resolution on
13.4.2011 allowing the institutions to fill up the posts reserved
for backward class categories, by adopting a special drive and
the ban imposed by the Government Resolution dated 2.5.2012
as such, would not apply to such cases.
6 In the instant matter, the petitioner belongs to SC category
and has been appointed in observance of the procedure,
prescribed under law. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that in view of Rule 9(7) of the Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations 1981, it is
{5} wp 1948.17.odt
obligation of the management to fill up the backlog vacancies by
observing prescribed procedure . The said obligation cast upon
the management has been performed, which cannot be
questioned by the Zilha Parishad Authorities.
7 In view of above, the reason put forth by the Education
Officer while turning down the proposal tendered by the
institution, seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner
does not hold good. The Writ petition, therefore, deserves to be
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
8 The order passed by the Education Officer, impugned in
this petition, refusing to accord approval to the appointment of
the petitioner dated 24.2.2014 is quashed and set aside and the
respondent No.3 Education Officer - Secondary, Ahmednagar is
directed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of Rules within eight weeks
from today.
9 Rule is accordingly made absolute.
10 There shall be no order as to costs.
( VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) (R. M. BORDE, J)
vbd
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!