Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O Chandrabhan Mule vs The State Of Maharashtra, ... on 26 July, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
937jud wp 3620.2020.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 3620/2020
Dilip S/o. Chandrabhan Mule
Aged about 45 Years, Occu. Service
R/o. At Post Birsingpur,
Tq. & Dist. Buldana. ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-032
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
3. Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh Shikshan
Prasarak Va Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Buldhana, Through its President,
R/o. "Vidyavishwa", Wankhede Layout,
Buldana, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.
4. Rajiv Gandhi Military School,
Ajantha Road, Kolwad,
Dist. Buldana,
Through its Head Master. .... RESPONDENT(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1
and 2/State
Shri Bhushan Dafle, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.J.
DATED : 26/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
counsel for the parties.
SMGate
937jud wp 3620.2020.odt
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order
dated 17.03.2020 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary),
Buldhana by which the proposal for grant of approval to the
appointment of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the staff
approval granted by the Education Officer (Secondary) on 26.12.2013
two posts of Junior Clerk and two posts of Peon were to be filled in.
Based on the aforesaid staff approval the Management on 11.02.2014
sought permission of the Education Officer (Secondary) to undertake
recruitment. Such permission was granted by the Education Officer
(Secondary) on 15.02.2014 and the advertisement proposed to be issued
was also approved. Thereafter on 06.05.2014 the Management
published an advertisement in a local newspaper pursuant to which the
petitioner had applied for appointment. On 26.06.2014 the petitioner
was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk. The matter of grant of
approval was pending before the Education Officer (Secondary).
Ultimately by communication dated 17.03.2020 the approval was
refused on the ground that the State Government was undertaking the
exercise of revising the policy for recruitment with regard to Military
School. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of
such approval.
SMGate
937jud wp 3620.2020.odt
4. Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was appointed after following due procedure and in
view of the prior permission granted by the Education Officer
(Secondary). By seeking to rely upon subsequent Government Resolution
dated 04.05.2020 the approval for the appointment of the petitioner has
been rejected. That Government Resolution pertained to academic year
2020-2021 and the same could be given any retrospective effect. This
Court had occasion to consider somewhat similar challenge in Writ
Petition No. 953/2021 (Laxmikant S/o Bhaskarrao Gondkar and ors. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.) dated 30.11.2021. By the said
judgment, it was held that the subsequent Government Resolution after
appointment of the petitioner could not have been relied upon.
5. Shri D.P. Thakare, the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the
impugned order. It was stated that with the change in policy the
Education Officer (Secondary) was required to comply with the same
and as there was no vacancy available when the petitioner was
appointed the approval was rightly rejected. No interference therefore
was called for with the impugned order.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we
have perused the documents on record. The fact that the Education
Officer (Secondary) on 15.02.2014 had granted permission to fill the
SMGate
937jud wp 3620.2020.odt
vacant posts and the subsequent advertisement was issued on
06.05.2014 is undisputed. The petitioner was appointed by appointment
letter dated 26.06.2014. The Education Officer (Secondary) however
had sought to rely upon the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2020 in
the impugned order. This aspect of applicability of Government
Resolution dated 04.05.2020 has been considered in Laxmikant S/o
Bhaskarrao Gondkar (supra) by this Court in paragraph 4 thereof. It
reads thus:-
"4. Government Circular dated 24.04.2020 clearly states
that prohibition on new recruitments would come into force
only from the date of the circular i.e. 24.04.2020 and here
in this case the appointments having been made on
14.01.2020, almost three months before 24.04.2020, the
appointments are not hit by this circular and therefore,
Education Officer ought not to have given the reason of ban
on recruitment as per the government circular dated
24.04.2020. Same is true about the Government Resolution
dated 04.05.2020, when it says that during period of
COVID-19 Pandemic no new recruitments should be made.
Here is the case where recruitments were already made and
that too by following the due procedure way-back on
14.01.2020, much before the onset of Pandemic and its
formal declaration by the State. So, the Education Officer
ought not have given the reason of this
Government Resolution as not permitting the grant of
approval to the appointment of the petitioners."
In the light of aforesaid, the Education Officer (Secondary) can be
directed to re-consider the proposal for grant of approval to the
appointment of the petitioner in view of that decision. Accordingly, the
following order is passed:-
SMGate
937jud wp 3620.2020.odt
(i) The order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Education
Officer (Secondary) refusing to approve appointment of the
petitioner is set aside.
(ii) The Education Officer (Secondary) shall re-consider
the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the
petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
If any further clarification is sought by the Education Officer
(Secondary) he is free to hear the petitioner and as well as
Management in that regard.
(iii) Necessary exercise be completed within a period of
two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The
decision taken on the proposal be communicated to
petitioner.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SANDIP
SANDIP MAHADEV
MAHADEV GATE
GATE Date:
2022.07.27
19:20:29
+0530
SMGate
