Sunita Bhatu Patil And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11876 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sunita Bhatu Patil And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 29 November, 2023

Author: A.S. Chandurkar

Bench: A.S. Chandurkar

2023:BHC-AS:35502-DB



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.10109 OF 2023

            1. Sunita Bhatu Patil                                               ]
               Aged 48 Yrs., Occ. Service,                                      ]
               R/o. Flat No.403, 4th Floor,                                     ]
               Shreeji Avenue, B Wing,                                          ]
               Wadaghar, Kalyan (West),                                         ]
               Dist. Thane - 421 301.                                           ]
            2. Shanti Shikshan Prachar Mandal,                                  ]
               Kalyan, Dist. Thane                                              ]
               Through its Chairman / Secretary                                 ] .. Petitioners
                                  Vs.
            1. The State of Maharashtra,                                        ]
               Through the Secretary,                                           ]
               School Education Department,                                     ]
               Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.                                    ]
            2. The Deputy Director of Education,                                ]
               Mumbai Region, Mumbai.                                           ]
            3. The Education Officer [Secondary],                               ]
               Zilla Parishad, Thane.                                           ] .. Respondents


            Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar,
            Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire and Mr. Aniket S. Phapale, i/by Ms. Ashwini N.
            Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioners.
            Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the Respondents-State.


                                                       CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
                                                                  FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ

                                                       DATE     : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2023.
                                                          1/3
            39-WP(ST.)-10109-2023.doc
            Dixit



                    ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2023                      ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 05:47:06 :::
 ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J. }

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of

the parties.

2. The Petitioners are challenging the Order dated 30 th January 2023

passed by Respondent No.3, whereby the proposal of Petitioner No.2 seeking the

approval of Respondent No.3 to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as a

Shikshan Sevak has been rejected for certain reasons mentioned in the Order.

The first reason given for rejecting the proposal is that the permission of the

Education Officer, as required under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 ("the Act"), was

not taken. This reason cannot be sustained by virtue of what has been held by

this Court in the case of Shital Kumar Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,

2022(1) Mh.L.J. 389, wherein it has been held that Section 5(1) of the Act is not

applicable to an institution like Petitioner No.2, which is a minority educational

institution. The second reason given in the Order for rejecting the said proposal

is that, by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 4 th May 2020, there was a

bar on filling any further vacancy. This reason also cannot be sustained, as in

the present case, the appointment was made on 26 th February 2020 i.e. prior to

4th May 2020.

3. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the said Order dated 30 th

January 2023 is required to be set aside with directions to Respondent No.3 to

reconsider the proposal of the Petitioners afresh.

39-WP(ST.)-10109-2023.doc Dixit

4. Accordingly, we set aside the said Order dated 30 th January 2023 with a

direction to Respondent No.3 to reconsider the said proposal of the Petitioners

afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order.

5. In case the appointment of Petitioner No.1 is approved, the Respondents

shall take all consequential necessary steps in that regard.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to

costs.

[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

39-WP(ST.)-10109-2023.doc Dixit