Bombay High Court
Smt. Vandana Manoj Chauhan vs The Secretary Prithviraj Chauhan ... on 20 April, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:12099
Gokhale 1 of 5 904-wp-10640-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10640 OF 2019
Smt. Vandana Manoj Chauhan ..Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary/President,
Prithviraj Chauhan Shikshan Samiti & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Mayuresh S. Lagu for Petitioner.
Mr. Ajit R. Pitale for Respondent No.3.
Mr. C. D. Mali, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 20 APRIL 2023
PC :
1. By consent of the parties the petition is disposed of
finally by this order.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated
27.07.2018 passed by the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Education
officer (Primary) Thane Municipal Corporation, Thane. The
Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Respondent
No.2 School i.e. Prithviraj Hindi Vidyalaya. The said school was
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 16:33:20 :::
2 of 5 904-wp-10640-19
managed by the Respondent No.1- Prithviraj Chauhan Shikshan
Samiti, Nalpada, Kapurbavdi, Thane.
4. Heard Shri. Mayuresh Lagu, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Shri. Ajit Pitale, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.3 and Shri. Mali, learned A.G.P. for the Respondent No.4.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the year 2014 the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued a public advertisement for
appointment of a teacher holding D.Ed. qualification. The
Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. The
letter of appointment was dated 25/06/2014. In the year 2018,
the Respondent Management submitted a proposal before the
Respondent No.3 for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner.
The said proposal was rejected by the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Respondent No.1 was granted a certificate on 10/07/2017 that the
said institution was Minority Institution. In the cases of Minority
Institutions, the G.R. dated 02/05/2012 mentioned in the
impugned order was not applicable. It was mentioned in the
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 16:33:20 :::
3 of 5 904-wp-10640-19
impugned order that, pursuant to the said G.R. unless all the
surplus teachers were absorbed, no new appointment could be
made by the Management in the private schools. The other reason
was that the documents were incomplete and that in the area of
Thane Municipal Corporation there were surplus teachers in the
Hindi Medium School. Therefore, based on all these reasons the
approval was not granted.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the order
passed by a division bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench on
02/09/2013 in the Writ Petition No.3707 of 2013, in which,
exactly this issue was dealt with. It was observed that, in the case
of Minority Institution the said G.R. dated 02/05/2012 was not
applicable and in a similar situation the order passed by the
Education Officer in that case on the similar ground was set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 tried to defend
the impugned order. He submitted that, by the subsequent
communication, other reasons are also given as to why the
proposal was not accepted.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 16:33:20 :::
4 of 5 904-wp-10640-19
9. I have considered these submissions. As far as this
petition is concerned, I am examining the order passed on
27/07/2018. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, the ratio of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court at Aurangabad Bench in W.P. No.3707 of 2013 is
squarely applicable to the present case. The institution is declared
as Minority Institution on 10/07/2017. The impugned order was
passed on 27/07/2018. According to the ratio of said Judgment,
the G.R. dated 02/05/2012 which is the basis of the impugned
order is not applicable to a Minority Institution. In this view of the
matter, the reasons given in the impugned order are not
sustainable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The
petition deserves to be allowed.
10. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The impugned order dated 27/07/2018 passed by
the Respondent No.3- Education officer (Primary)
Thane Municipal Corporation, Thane, is set aside.
5 of 5 904-wp-10640-19
ii) The Respondent No.3 shall consider the proposal
sent by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for approval
of the appointment of the Petitioner, afresh, in
accordance with law.
iii)With these observations, Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms.
iv) The Petition is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
