Bombay High Court
Siddharth Shikshan Sanstha, Astul ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:8465-DB
1 WP-3520-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3520 of 2018
[Siddharth Shikshan Sanstha, Astul, through its Secretary and others VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
Registrar's orders.
Shri Anand Parchure, Counsel for Petitioners.
Shri H.D. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.
Shri R.D. Karode, Counsel for Intervenor.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2024
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner No.3 was appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak
pursuant to an advertisement dated 3-9-2014.
3. The appointment order was issued to the petitioner No.3 on
9-9-2014 and the proposal for approval to the appointment of the
petitioner No.3 was accordingly forwarded to the Deputy Director of
Education, Amravati, which was rejected by the impugned communication
dated 31-8-2017.
4. Amongst other, the reason cited is that the Management has not
taken the permission for filling in the post so as to accommodate the
surplus teachers and there was absence of sufficient time period in
between the advertisement and the date of appointment.
2 WP-3520-2018.odt
5. As far as the issue of advertisement and date of appointment is
concerned, the fact remains that the appointment order was issued on
9-9-2014 as against the advertisement dated 3-9-2014. There is no
embargo brought to the notice of this Court as to the insufficiency of the
aforesaid period.
6. The fact remains that in the impugned order, the Deputy Director of
Education has place reliance on the Government Resolution
dated 6-2-2012, wherein it is claimed it is claimed that the conditions
therein are not satisfied by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2- Management.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Management is a minority
Institution and the protection extended under Article 13 of the
Constitution of India is available to it.
8. In such an eventuality, the procedure to be adopted in the matter of
making such appointment does not bind the minority Institution to seek
no-objection from the Education Officer in case there existed sanctioned
vacancy.
9. Apart from above, even if a surplus teacher is available, the services
of such surplus teacher cannot be sponsored on the Institution, like the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
10. The issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the matter of Canossa Society, Mumbai Versus Commissioner,
Social Welfare, Pune, reported in 2014 (4) ABR 521.
3 WP-3520-2018.odt
11. In this background, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 31-8-2017 passed by the respondent No.2-
Deputy Director of Education, Amravati.
12. We direct the respondent No.2- Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.3, as it
is claimed that the appointment of the petitioner No.3 was against a clear
vacancy.
13. The petition stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
No costs.
14. In view of the aforesaid order, the application for intervention also
stands disposed of as infructuous, as nothing remains to be considered.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
LANJEWAR
Signed by: Prashant D. Lanjewar
Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary
Date: 05/08/2024 16:02:26
