Bombay High Court
Sanjeevani Ramchandra Kadam vs The Education Officer ... on 27 September, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
wp-5304-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5304 OF 2021
Sanjeevani R. Kadam .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The Education Officer & Others .. Respondents.
Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar with Mr. Pritesh Kadam, Mohan Devkule and Mohit
Dalvi, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sagar A. Mane, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar with Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar i/b. A. N.
Bandiwadekar, for Respondent No.4.
Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM: G.S. KULKARNI,J.
Digitally signed
by SMITA
SMITA RAJNIKANT
RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
JOSHI
Date:
2021.09.30
DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2021.
10:51:23 +0530
P.C:-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2 The challenge in this Petition is to the judgment and order
dated 13th August, 2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Kolhapur, by which the Petitioners appeal praying for quashing
and setting aside the said order and allow the Appeal and declare the
supersession by Respondent No.3 - Management dated 26 th January, 2020
of Respondent No.4 as Head Master of the School.
3 The case of the Petitioner before the Tribunal was to the
effect that in the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers dated 15 th March,
2020, the Petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2 and the Respondent No.4
was shown at Sr. No.8. She contended that she was senior to Respondent
No.4, hence she should be considered for promotion to the post of Head
Master.
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 4
wp-5304-2021.doc
4 It appears that there was an important event prior to the
publication of the seniority list which possibly missed the attention of the
Petitioner namely that Respondent No.4 was promoted as Assistant Head
Master on 29th February, 2020. Once he was promoted as Assistant Head
Master, he migrated to a higher category namely in category 'B' as
provided in Schedule 'F' to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules 1981. If on the basis of such promotion as
Assistant Teacher, a further promotion of Respondent No.4 was made to
the post of Head Master, then contention of the Petitioner based on the
seniority list of Assistant Teachers dated 15 th March, 2020 certainly faded
into insignificance.
5 Be that as it may, it appears that the Petitioner did not take
any steps to assail the appointment of Respondent No.4 as the Assistant
Head Master on 29th February, 2020. Respondent No.4 was appointed as
the Head Master on 1st June, 2020 only then the Petitioner approached
the Tribunal, praying for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Decide and declare that the order of supersession dated
01-06-2020 under the appeal is illegal, improper and
unjustified and be quashed and set aside;
(b) Direct the Respondents to withdraw the said order of
super-session;
(c) Direct the Respondents to promote and appoint the
Appellant as head master with full back wages;
(d) Such other relief for the ends of justice may be granted."
6 On perusal of the above prayer, it is clear that Petitioner did
not assail the first promotion of Respondent No.4 as Assistant Head
Master which was granted on 29 th February, 2020. On a query made in
this regard, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
Respondent No.4's promotion was not approved by the Education Officer,
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 4
wp-5304-2021.doc
hence, the Petitioner could not have challenged Respondent No.4's
promotion as Assistant Teacher. Such plea as urged on behalf the
Petitioner, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. It does not
appear to be the requirement of any rule that approval is required to be
granted by the Education Officer for the promotion to take effect for its
recognition in law. Mr. Bhatkar is unable to support such plea of the
Petitioner on the basis of any legal provision.
7 Secondly, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for Respondent
No.4 relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in St. Ulai
High School and Another v/s. Devendraprasad J. Singh and Another 2007
(1) Mh. L.J. 597 has contended that the issue of approval is relevant only
in the context of disbursal of the financial aid. A perusal of the decision of
the Full Bench shows that one of the issue as framed by the Full Bench
was whether it was mandatory for every private recognized school to
obtain an approval of the Education Department of the State to the
appointment of every employee, including a teacher employed at such
School. On considering this issue, the Full Bench has held that neither the
Act nor the Rules mandate approval of the Education Department as a
condition precedent to a valid order of appointment. It was held that the
question of approval merely relates to the disbursal of financial aid. The
denial of approval could not invalidate an order of appointment.
8 In the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, the Petitioner
having acquiesced and /or having not challenged the appointment of
Respondent No.4 as Assistant Head Master, has proved to be fatal to her
case, to assert any right to claim promotion to the post of Head Master.
Although the Petitioner was certainly senior to Respondent No.4, however,
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 4
wp-5304-2021.doc
except for such acquiescence, she would have been eligible to stake a
claim for promotion.
9 The Tribunal has appropriately taken into consideration the
facts on record. I find no perversity or illegality in the findings as
recorded by the Tribunal.
10 Thus, Petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.
(G.S. KULKARNI,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 4
