Sitabai Sangai Eduation Soceity, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10835 Bom

                                                   WP.3793.18.j
                                    1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                               ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3793/2018

1) Sitabai Sangai Education Society Anjangqaon-Surji, Dist.Amravati.

Through its President

2) Sitabai Sangai Kanya School Anjangaon-Surji Dist.Amravati.

Through its Headmaster (corrected the name as per order of RJ dated 16.12.20)

2A) Sitabai Sangai Vidyalaya and Kanishtha Mahavidyalaya Anjangon (Surji),Tah.Anjangaon Surji Dist.Amavati Through its Headmaster (Amendment carried out as per Court's order dated 16.12.20)

3) Nikhil Dilip Raoo Aged 25 years, occu: service

4) Ku. Darshana Subhashrao Hivre Aged 28 years, occu; service

5) Gaurav Pundlikrao Shiraskar Aged 23 years, occu: service

3 to 5 are R/o C/o Sitabai Sangai Vidyalaya Anjangaon Surji Dist.Amravati. ..PETITIONERS

versus

1. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Education Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

                                                                                               WP.3793.18.j


2)     Education Officer (Sec)
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.                                                   ..        RESPONDENTS

..................................................................................................................

Mr Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners Mr. N.S.Rao, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2 ................................................................................................

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 17th October, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent.

3. By the order passed on 11th October, 2022, we have found

that the ban on recruitment does not apply to minority institutions, this

being the law well-settled by this Court through the view consistently

taken by different Benches at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur.

Therefore, the exclusion of the Education Officer to approve the

appointment of petitioner nos.3,4 and 5 on that ground, does not stand

scrutiny of law.

4. As regards the second ground stated in the impugned

communication, we find that there was already an approved staffing

pattern for the years 2013-14, which showed that there were one WP.3793.18.j

sanctioned post of Laboratory Assistant and five sanctioned posts of

Peon. This fact is also noted in our order dated 11 th October, 2022.

Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the

Eduction Officer on 19.04.2018 is bad in law and it deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

5. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "A"

and "B'. The impugned communication dated 19.04.2018 is hereby

quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent no.2 to grant approval

to the appointment of petitioners 3 to 5 with effect from 12.07.2014,

if not already granted and to release the salary of the petitioners 3 to 5

for the period commencing from 12.07.2014 till the date of grant of

approval and continue to pay the same during the period they are in

service, provided there is no breach of conditions or change in the

circumstances in the interregnum, within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of this order.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                   JUDGE                          JUDGE

sahare




                                                           Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA
                                                           BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE
                                                           Location:
                                                           Signing Date:17.10.2022 18:29