Nazisha Farhana Abddul Rehman ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13498 Bom

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9080 OF 2021

Nazisha Farhana Abddul Rehman Shaikh                      ...Petitioner.
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others.                        ..Respondents.

                                         ------------
Mr. Satish S. Raut, Shaikh Abdul Azim Mohd. Hanif for the Petitioner.
Smt. P.J. Gawhane, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap and Reha Francis for Respondent Nos.2&3-PMC.
                                         ------------

                              CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                      SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

                              Date       : December 22, 2022.

P. C. :

1.         Heard.

2. The challenge is to the order dated 4 th October, 2014 which is

produced at Exh.H, issued by the Head of Education Department of

Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation.

3. The proposal forwarded by Respondent No.4, a minority

institution, seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner was

rejected by the impugned order for the reasons that prior

permission of Respondent No.3 was not obtained and the surplus

teachers on the establishment of Respondent No.3, though

available, are not absorbed.

                      Digitally signed
                      by SACHIN
Patil_sr   SACHIN     RAMCHANDRA                                           1/ 3
           RAMCHANDRA PATIL
           PATIL      Date:
                      2022.12.23
                      10:50:22 +0530

4. The counsel for the Petitioner drawing support from the

Division Bench Judgment (Aurangabad Bench) of this Court in the

matter of Parbhani Education Society vs. The State of Maharashtra,

Writ Petition No.3707 of 2013, decided on 2nd September, 2013

would urge that the minority institutions are excluded from the

purview of the permission being obtained from Respondent No.3

for filling up the posts and also the absorption of surplus teachers

from the establishment of the said authority.

5. The counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the petition is

preferred at a belated stage without there being any explanation.

6. Be that as it may, we direct Respondent No.4 to submit a

fresh proposal disclosing that Respondent no.4 is a minority

institution, to Respondent No.3, in relation to grant of approval to

the appointment of Petitioner within a period of six weeks from

today.

7. We expect Respondent no.3 to take decision on the said

proposal having regard to the decision of this Court in the Parbhani

Education Society (supra). We direct Respondent No.3 to take

decision on the proposal forwarded by Respondent No.4 in relation

to grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner as

expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of 12

Patil_sr 2/ 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the said proposal.

8. The petition stands partly allowed in the above terms.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]                       [Nitin W. Sambre, J.]




Patil_sr                                                                 3/ 3