[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sayyed Mainoddin Dadakhan vs The President, Kadariya Education ... on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33451
(1) wp4648.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4648 OF 2007
Sayyed Mainoddin Dadakhan .. Petitioner
Age. 24 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Kadri Nagar, Ausa,
Taluka Ausa, Dist. Latur.
VERSUS
1. The President, .. Respondents
Kendriya Education Society, Ausa,
Taluka Ausa, Dist. Latur.
2. The Head Master,
K.B. Haseena Urdu Girls High School,
Khadakpura Ausa, Taluka Ausa,
Dist. Latur.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
4. The Superintendent of Pay Unit,
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
Mr. S.S Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Mali, Advocate for respondent No.1 & 2.
Mr. R.B. Dhaware, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 16.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.12.2025
J U D G M E N T :
-
01. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Jadhavar for the petitioner,
(2) wp4648.07
learned Advocate Mr. D.S. Mali for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned
AGP Mr. Dhaware for respondent Nos. 3 and 4-State.
02. In this petition, Rule has been issued by this Court vide order
dated 26.11.2007.
03. An order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Latur dated 24.07.2007, in Appeal No. 254 of 2006 is under
challenge. The petitioner/original appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of
the appeal. Respondent No.1 is the Management. Respondent No.2 is
the School. Respondent No.3 is the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Latur and respondent No.4 is the Superintendent of Pay Unit,
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
04. It is case of the petitioner that he was qualified and eligible to
be appointed to the post of Peon in the Secondary School. The
respondents appointed him by following due procedure. Appointment
was given on 10.06.2002 on probation basis. It is further case that on
completion of two years probation period, the petitioner became
permanent. Though the petitioner was permanent, respondent Nos. 1
and 2 without following any procedure and without conducting any
(3) wp4648.07
inquiry, orally terminated the services of the petitioner from 22.01.2006.
05. The petitioner, therefore, approached the School Tribunal by
filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act [for short "MEPS Act"],
thereby challenging the otherwise termination. His services were
protected by an interim order. However, by way of the impugned
judgment and order, the appeal came to be dismissed, by holding that
the petitioner could not prove that he was duly selected and appointed to
the post of Peon. The School Tribunal also recorded that the petitioner
failed to show that the advertisement was issued for the post of Peon and
any procedure was followed for giving appointment.
06. Before the School Tribunal, it was case of the Management
that the petitioner was never appointed by following due process of law.
Copies of the muster roll etc. produced before the School Tribunal are
fabricated documents, forged by the petitioner and therefore no reliance
can be placed on the muster roll etc.
07. Learned Advocate Mr. Jadhavar for the petitioner vehemently
argued that the petitioner was duly appointed by following proper
(4) wp4648.07
procedure. The advertisement was published in the newspaper. The
Management, however, never gave copy of the appointment order to the
petitioner, nor produced advertisement before the School Tribunal and
deliberately suppressed the material. The learned Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal failed to appreciate the copies of muster-roll showing
petitioner's name in the muster along with other employees. He submits
that even regular salary was not paid. Towards salary he was only paid
Rs. 50,000/- at only once. There are letters on record to show that the
proposal for approval of the petitioner's service was sent to the Education
Officer. He thus submits that inspite of overwhelming material on record
the learned Presiding Officer committed error. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner relies upon following judgments :-
i) Smt. Rajashree Sarjerao Lokhande & Ors. Vs. Hareshwar Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal & Anr., AIR 2008 (1) Bom. 256.
ii) New Education Institute, Nashik & Ors. Vs. Mahejabin Ashfak
Ahmed Shaikh & Ors., 2008(1) AIR Bom R 256.
iii) Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyarthi Vasatigruh Turst & Anr. Vs.
Bharat D. Hambir & Anr., 2009(2) ABR (NOC) 238 (BOM).
vi) Deepak T. Kaul Vs. Sanjeevani Vidhyalaya Trust, Pune, AIR 2020
OnLine Bom. 1633.
v) Abdul Rafique Abdul Hamid Vs. Yavatmal Islamia Anglo Urdu
Education Society, 2014 (5) ABR 161.
08. Learned Advocate Mr. Mali for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
vehemently opposes the petition. He supports the impugned judgment.
(5) wp4648.07
He submits that the petitioner could not produce material documents
such as advertisement issued for the post of Peon, appointment order
etc. The muster roll produced by the petitioner is false and fabricated
document. There is clear finding recorded by the learned Presiding
Officer to that effect. So far as the payment of amount of Rs. 50,000/- is
concerned, he submits that it was not an amount towards salary but was
amount given to the petitioner out of personal relationship, as the
President of the Trust happens to be son of cousin of mother of the
petitioner and that cannot be said to be a salary. No salary bill etc. is
produced on record. He relies upon copies of staff list and staff
sanctioned for the year 2023-24. He also relies upon following
judgments :-
i) Priyadarshini Education Trust & Ors. Vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano Abdul
Rasheed, 2007(6) Bom. C.R. 79.
ii) Vasant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through its President & Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2017(1) Mh.L.J.67.
09. The learned AGP strongly supports the order. He submits
that there is no record with the Zilla Parishad, showing that any
advertisement was approved for post of Peon. At no point of time any
proposal was received for approval of the petitioner's appointment etc.
(6) wp4648.07
10. In the case of Smt. Rajashree Sarjerao Lokhande
[supra], it was a case that a teacher was shown to have acquired
deemed permanancy. It was shown that the teacher was continuously
working from 1988 till 2004. It was held that in such circumstances she
cannot be deprived of her claim of permanency. In that case services
were confirmed by the Management against the post reserved for OBC
vide letter dated 22.09.2003. The appointment was also ratified by the
Education Officer. She was recognized as a person belonging to Kunbi
community. It is thereafter the Management terminated her services
stating that she does not belong to Kunbi. In that view it was held that
after approving services against OBC category, it was not open for the
Management to terminate services on the count that the teacher does
not belong to OBC.
11. In the case of New Education Institute [supra], there
appointment was against clear and vacant post. Still the management
had appointed a teacher only for one year. It was held that the
Management ought to have appointed the teacher on probation for two
years.
12. In the case of Matoshri [supra], it was clearly shown on the
(7) wp4648.07
basis of documents on record that the employee was duly appointed by
following requisite procedure for selection. The appointment was on
probation basis. The services were continued even after two years and in
that view his services were held to be of permanent nature and
termination was set aside.
13. In the case of Deepak T. Kaul [supra], it was shown that
the petitioner was appointed against a clear and vacant post by following
due process. The stand of the Management was that his services were
not duly approved and was therefore terminated.
14. In the case of Priyadarshini [supra], it is held that to claim
benefit of deemed permanency under section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, it is
necessary that the teacher must have been duly selected and appointed
on a clear vacancy, which is lacking in the present case.
15. In the case of Vasant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal [supra],
it was held that prior permission of the Education Department is
necessary. It was a case where prior permission of Education Department
regarding availability of suitable surplus candidate was not taken.
Without such permission, fresh candidate was appointed. The proposal
(8) wp4648.07
for approval of such appointment was refused by the Education Officer
for violation of mandatory provision of section 5(1) the MEPS Act and
proviso to the same.
16. In the present case, it is a matter of fact that the petitioner
has not produced on record copy of advertisement. He could not show
that the Education Officer had granted permission to publish
advertisement to fill up post of Peon in the respondent-school. He could
not produce even order of appointment. On one hand, he could not
produce these vital documents under the pretext that these documents
are withheld by the management and on the other hand, he produced on
record copy of muster roll, letter of the Headmaster to the Education
Officer seeking approval etc.
17. Though it is a case that the muster roll produced by the
management on record is fabricated as per the allegation, this Court
cannot deal with the same. So far as payment of Rs.50,000/- is
concerned, same cannot be considered towards salary. There is nothing
on record to show that any salary was paid to the petitioner or salary
bills were sent to the Zilla Parishad. This Court finds substance in the
arguments of learned Advocates for the respondents that the petitioner
(9) wp4648.07
has failed to produce on record copy of advertisement, appointment
order etc. Rule 9(3) of the MEPS Rules requires that prior to issuance of
advertisement, it is necessary to take permission from the Education
Officer. The same is not appearing on record. The petitioner's case in
this regard is that the Management has deliberately not given original
appointment order to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. It is also stand
of the Education Officer that there was no sanction to the advertisement
granted by the Authorities to fill up post of the Peon. There is also no
case that any proposal was sanctioned by the Management.
18. Considering all the above, this Court finds that no case is
made out to allow this petition. No illegality or perversity is pointed out
in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The impugned order of
the learned Tribunal does not require any interference.
19. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2025/Nov25/wp4648.07
