Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.

11. Since it is a matter of objectively scrutinizing validity of the appointment of the petitioner, it is imperative for us to bear in mind the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules. The provisions read as under :-

"Section (5). Certain obligations of Management of private Schools.
(1) The Management shall, as soon as possible, fill in, in the manner prescribed every permanent vacancy in a private school by the appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy;

12. True it is that in view of the decision in the matter of Smt. Munoli (supra), the recruitment process can be undertaken to fill in the backlog of the backward classes. Similarly, even the recruitment 9 WP / 7437 / 2019 process can be undertaken by the management for making appointments to fill up the vacancies for specific subjects, namely, English, Mathematics and Science. However, pertinently, this decision does not specifically dispense with the procedure to be followed in the light of the provisions of section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules.

15. Pertinently, even though the opportunity of being heard was extended to the petitioner as also the respondent no. 7 - Headmaster before passing the impugned order, neither of them were 10 WP / 7437 / 2019 able to produce any intimation to the Education Officer having been extended in compliance with section 5 or the management having ascertained the backlog by soliciting information under Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules.

19. So far as argument of Mr. Munde regarding parity with the other two candidates recruited in the same selection process is concerned, it is to be noted that in-fact, the legality or otherwise of their appointment is not in question. They are not even parties to the present petition.

20. In view of the above, the petitioner having miserably failed to demonstrate that he was appointed in the recruitment process undertaken by following the provisions of section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules, no fault can be found with the objective finding arrived at in the impugned order recalling the approval granted to petitioner's appointment.