Bombay High Court
Gowari Harshbala Ganpat And Anr vs State Of Maharasthra , Through Its ... on 8 December, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
rsk 1 34-WP-12409-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12409 OF 2017
Gowari Harshbala Ganpat and Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary
and Anr. ...Respondents
-------
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar i/b Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye for the Petitioners.
Smt. S. S. Bhende, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and
2-State.
-------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : 8 DECEMBER 2022.
P. C. :
The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 24/10/2017 wherein the prayer of Petitioner No.1 for grant of approval to her appointment in a school managed by Petitioner No.2-Society came to be rejected. The cause of rejection of approval to the appointment cited in the impugned order is the Petitioner- Management's failure to seek permission/ No objection from the Respondent-Authority before filling up the post, as Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI 32 surplus teacher, on the list maintained by Respondent-Authority were RAJESHWARI SUBODH SUBODH KARVE KARVE Date:
2022.12.15 17:52:59 +0530 available for absorption.
2. The contention of Mr. Bandiwadekar appearing for the rsk 2 34-WP-12409-17.doc Petitioners is the Petitioner has sought candidate from the list maintained by the Education Officer vide communication dated 26/5/2015. According to him the Petitioners have waited till 16/6/2015 and on 17/6/2015 issued an advertisement, conducted interviews on 18/6/2015 at 10.00 a.m. and issued appointment in favour of Petitioner No.1 on 22/6/2015.
3. According to him the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Anant Kamlakar Joshi & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No.4232/2016 decided on 17/10/2016 as he would urge that the Petitioner-
Management cannot be made to wait for indefinite period particularly having regard to the mandate of the provisions of sub- section 1 of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981.
4. The learned AGP would support the order impugned. This Court is of the prima facie view that the judgment in the matter of Anant Joshi (cited supra) will not be attracted in the facts of the present case particularly, when in the said matter the Management has waited for sufficient period before filling up the post as can be inferred from the said Judgment. In the case in hand, what can be noticed is Petitioner No.2- Management by taking recourse to the hasty process of filling up the post not only waited for reasonable period for response of the Education Officer but has within 20 days vacancies were advertised by the Petitioner No.2- Management, Petitioner has tried to take advantage of only communication which was addressed to the Education Officer. Prima facie this Court is of rsk 3 34-WP-12409-17.doc the view that the conduct of Petitioner No.2-Management of issuing the communication to the Education officer seeking no objection to approval and thereafter immediately issuing an advertisement, a mode adopted for creating evidence so as to cover up the formality of seeking permission from the Education officer.
4. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned counsel at this stage submits that the posts were required to be filled in at the earliest having regard to the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of MEPS Act, 1977. He submits that he will place on record the entire details as to the posts in question i.e. date on which the post fall vacant, correspondence etc.
5. In view of the above, time of four weeks is granted to file additional affidavit on record.
6. Stand over to 31/1/2023.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)