The Bombay High Court quashes the rejection letter of teacher by the Education Department, directs them to grant the approval of his appointment as ‘Shikshan Sevak’.
Title: Rajan Sahadeo Ratul v. State of Maharashtra, School Education Department
Decided on: July 3, 2023
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1321 : (2023) 4 Bom CR 298. Writ Petition No. 1423 of 2021
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G.S. PATEL AND HON’BLE JUSTICE NEELA K. GOKHALE
Introduction
The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection letter of a teacher and directed the management to approve his appointment as employee as ‘Shikshan Sevak’. A bench consisting of Justice G.S Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale found the appointment of employee legally valid.
Facts of the Case
The 1st Petitioner is an employee of the school and the respondent is the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur region. In accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”), after a vacancy arose, the school enquired about availability of surplus candidates from the management but after receiving neither a reply nor a surplus candidate nominee for appointment, the school commenced the procedure to fill up the vacancy and the 1st Petitioner joined service. The school then submitted the required proposal to the Respondent for approval of the Petitioner’s appointment as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ on 10 January 2020. The respondent rejected the proposal on the ground that the procedure of obtaining prior approval was not followed. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner, that the Respondent failed to convey to the school that the permission for selection process cannot be granted or that it has been refused for any reason and there was no communication at all regarding availability of surplus teacher of required qualifications. It is only after expiry of more than seven months, in the absence of a response of any kind, that the Management proceeded with selection procedure. The respondent however argues that this was in contravention of Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012 which mandated a ‘No Objection’ to be taken from the State Government prior to commencing of a selection procedure for filling up any vacancy, hence respondent prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
The Court held that when the School Management informs the Education Department about a vacancy in its school seeking the latter’s permission for appointment, the Education Officer is expected to either forward names of suitable persons from the list of surplus teachers maintained by the Department or if no surplus teacher is available for absorption, permit the Management to appoint the teacher following regular appointment procedure. When the Education Officer does neither, the School Management is not expected to carry on with the vacancy awaiting a response from the Department indefinitely. The Court thus directed the Education Department to grant approval to appointments made by the Management in such cases and disburse the honorarium as per Rules. The court also held that the Petitioner is working in the school since 17 June 2019 and there has been no blemish on his performance. The Management was found to be well within its rights to commence the selection process in the absence of any response from the Respondents. The rejection letter dated 18 March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The Respondent was directed to grant the requisite approval to the appointment of the 1st Petitioner as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ from the date of his appointment and include his name in the Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Reema Nayak
