Bombay High Court
Ubhajo Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 16 November, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
WP.2538.21..J
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 2538/2021
1. Ubhajo Shikshan Sanstha
Through its Secretary
office at Rajguru Ward Budhwari peth,
Bhandara Tah.& Dist.Bhandara 441 904.
2. Adivasi Ujwala Vidyalalaya,
Bijepar : Through its Head Master,
Bijepar, Tah.Salekasa Dist.Gondia-441902.
3. Ms.Shitaltai D/o Rohidas Ambade
Aged about 35 years, occu: service
R/o Rajguru Ward, Near Bajaj School
Bhandara-441904.
4. Ms. Hemlata D/o Bhaskarrao Jambhulkar
Aged about 42 years, occu: service
R/o Azad Ward, Kurkheda Tah. Kurekheda
Dist.Gadchiroli-441207.
5. Mr. Mengeshkumar s/o Babulal Gadpaile
Aged about 37 years occu; service
R/o Nawargaon (Kala) Tah. Dist. Gondia.
6. Ms. Vishakha D/o Yuvraj Goutam
Aged 26 years, occu: service
R/o Kawdi, Post Anjora Tah. Amgaon
Dist. Gondia- 441902. ..PETITIONERS
versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Department of Education
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
WP.2538.21..J
2. The Deputy Director of Education
Nagpur Division, Nagpur 440 001.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Gondia - 441902. .. RESPONDENTS
..................................................................................................................
Mr Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. D.P. Thakare, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3
................................................................................................................
CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ
DATED : 16th November, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of respective parties.
2. The impugned order dated 21 st May 2021 states only one
reason for not granting approval to the proposal of the petitioner no.1-
Sanstha for filling up the vacancies and this reason is of ban on
recruitment.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner no.1-Sanstha is a
minority institution. It is well settled that for a minority institution to
make recruitment, ban on recruitment is not applicable but, the
Education Officer has put forward this very reason. The learned
Additional Government Pleader submits that that was not the only
reason why the permission was refused and there were additional
WP.2538.21..J
reasons which are stated in the reply.
4. We do not think that these additional reasons which have
been put forward is now is an effort to supplement the reasons given in
the impugned order, can be considered by this Court, in view of the
settled law as propounded, in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and
another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner and others, reported in
AIR 1978 SC 851 and, therefore, we choose to ignore them. The
Education Officer now would have to take appropriate decision in the
matter which we hope he will take by giving due respect to the settled
law that it deserves.
5. Accordingly, we allow the petition. The impugned order is
hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
respondent no.3 for a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with
law, keeping all questions raised in the petition open. It is directed
that respondent no.3 shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
nos. 1 and 2 for which the purpose the petitioners are at liberty to
appear before the Education Officer on 30th November,2021. It is further
directed that the decision in accordance with this order shall be taken
by the respondent no.3 as expeditiously as possible and, in any case,
within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 before him. The petitioners are at liberty to
WP.2538.21..J
bring to kind notice of respondent no.3 the law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and also the Division Benches of this Court.
6. Rule in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
