Bombay High Court
Ku. Ashwini D/O Wishwasrao Kadu And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 20 December, 2023
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2023:BHC-NAG:17675-DB
1 65wp7417.2023..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7417 OF 2023
1. Ku. Ashwini d/o. Wishwasrao Kadu,
aged about 30 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Shri Dadasaheb Gawai
Vidyalaya, Ratnapur,
Tahsil Dharni, District Amravati,
2. The President,
Rahul Vyam Prasarak Mandal,
Bhumiptra Colony, Amravati,
Tahsil and District Amravati
3. The Head Master,
Shri Dadasaheb Gawai Vidyalaya,
Ratnapur, Tahsil Dharni,
District Amravati. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, the Department of
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati, Tahsil and
District Amravati. .....RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. U. Ghude, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. M. Ghogare, AGP for Respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 20.12.2023
JUDGMENT (Per: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2 65wp7417.2023..odt
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is an Assistant Teacher, holding
qualifications of B.Sc. B.Ed, and MSCIT. As per the advertisement
of petitioner No. 3 - School, she was selected and appointed as
Shikshan Sevak on 14.11.2022. Petitioner No. 3 is a minority
institution run by Petitioner No. 2 - institution. After the selection
of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 3 forwarded a proposal to
respondent No. 2 for approval for the post of Shikshan Sevak.
However, vide communication dated 9.2.2023, respondent No. 2
rejected the proposal, on the ground, that as per Government
Resolution dated 4.5.2020 and communication dated 5.5.2020,
there is a ban on recruitment. Being aggrieved by the
order/communication impugned dated 9.2.2023, the petitioner is
before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for petitioners vehemently submits
that respondent No. 2 - Education Officer without considering the
settled position of law and the decision of this Court dated
7.3.2020 in Writ Petition No. 1050/2021, passed the impugned
order, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. He
has further relied upon the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition
3 65wp7417.2023..odt
Nos. 4037/2022 and 2538/2021 dated 2.3.2023 and dated
16.11.2021, respectively. According to the learned advocate, in
Writ Petition No. 2538/2021, this Court has already dealt with the
issue involved in the present petition and held that the said GR
and letter/communication do not apply to the minority
institutions while making any recruitment and therefore, he has
prayed for allowing this petition.
4. Learned AGP for respondents/State submits that the
Court may pass an appropriate order in the light of settled
position of law.
5. Having heard rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the orders passed by this Court in the petitions referred
above, it seems, that while passing the order in Writ Petition No.
2538/2021, this Court has clarified that the ban on recruitment
would not be applicable to the minority institutions. Likewise, it
reveals from the decision in Writ Petition No. 4037/2022 that the
State Government has taken a decision to lift the ban on
recruitment and to permit minority institutions to fill in vacant
posts. Perusal of Government Resolution dated 4.5.2021, prima
facie it seems that for the 2021 financial year, the State
4 65wp7417.2023..odt
Government has imposed restrictions on account of the Covid
pandemic, it does not appear that the said restrictions are
applicable for further financial years.
6. It is to be noted that despite the opportunity given, the
respondent/State has not filed a reply to the petition to resist the
claim of the petitioners.
7. On perusal of the impugned communication, it seems
that respondent No. 2, by referring Government Resolution dated
4.5.2020 and letter dated 5.5.2020, observed that due to the ban
on recruitment, respondent No. 2 has rejected the proposal
forwarded by petitioner No. 3, without considering the settled
position of law and the decisions in the petitions referred supra. In
view of the above discussion, it seems that the issue raised by
respondent No. 2 has already been dealt with by this Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 2538/2021 and 1050/2021(supra) and therefore,
the present case is also covered by the said orders. That being so,
we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned
communication/order dated 9.2.2023. The petition is allowed
accordingly.
5 65wp7417.2023..odt
i) Impugned communication/order dated
9.2.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 - Education
Officer is quashed and set aside.
ii) Respondent no. 2 is directed to take a fresh
decision on the proposal sent by petitioners No. 2 and 3
for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner
No.1, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event,
within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
iii) Needless to clarify that the proposal be
decided on its own merits and the decision taken be
communicated to the petitioners, immediately.
8. Rule made accordingly. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
belkhede
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/01/2024 18:18:40
