Allowed

Parbhani Education Society Parbhani through Its President Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Engineer v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/1855/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed a writ petition filed by a minority educational institution challenging communications from the Education Officer based on a Government Resolution. The court held that the restriction on appointments applicable to non-minority institutions does not apply to minority institutions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications relied upon Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 were quashed and set aside. Education Officer directed to consider appointment proposal without raising surplus teacher gr

Parbhani Education Society Parbhani through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1855.16WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1855 OF 2016

¶6

PARBHANI EDUCATION SOCIETY PARBHANI THROUGH
ITS PRESIDENT MOHAMMAD ABDUL RASHEED

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Tele Ashok B.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.K. Kadam
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. B.A.
Shinde

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Dated: May 04, 2016

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith
and heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶15

2. By filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the exception is taken to the inter se communications between the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani and the Headmaster, Dr. Zakir Hussain Primary School at Exhibit G' Collectively. Upon careful perusal of the impugned communications, it clearly emerges that the approval to the regular appointments of the teachers in the`

¶16

1855.16WP

¶17

¶18

petitioner Society, which is minority
institution has been refused, relying upon
the Government Resolution dated 2nd May,
2012. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the said Government
Resolution cannot be made applicable in case
of the petitioner, which is undisputedly
minority institution.

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for
Respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of
the petitioner, and submits that the Petition
may be rejected.

¶20

4.The petitioner has placed on record
the copy of the judgment dated 2nd September,
2013 in Writ Petition No. 3707 of 2013
(Parbhani Education Society, Parbhani V/s The
State of Maharashtra and another). In the
said Petition, the same issue was involved.
The Division Bench of this Court, in the
facts of that case, in para 12 recorded the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner therein, that the impugned
communication issued making reference to
Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012,
whichpurportedlyinjunctsprivate
managements/ local authorities from filling

¶21

1855.16WP

¶22

¶23

up posts in their schools unless there is
100% absorption of surplus teachers, is not
applicable in the case of petitioner, which
indisputably is a minority institution. After
appreciating the said contention, this Court
in para 14 of the said judgment held that the
petitioner - institution is indisputably a
minority institution and, in various rulings
cited on behalf of the petitioner, it is held
thattheappointmentsbyminority
institutions would not be able to be withheld
till the time surplus teachers are
accommodated/absorbed. Therefore in the facts
of that case, this Court allowed the Petition
and impugned communication therein was
quashed and set aside.

¶24

5.In the present case also the
petitionerisminorityinstitution.
Therefore, the impugned communications at
Exhibit-G Colly, relying upon the Government
Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 deserve to be
quashed and set aside and accordingly the
same are quashed and set aside.

¶25

The Education Officer is directed to
consider the proposal for approval, without
raising the same ground, which is raised in

¶26

1855.16WP

¶27

¶28

the impugned communications and take decision
on the said proposal, as expeditiously as
possible, and preferably on or before 15th
June, 2016.

¶29

6.The Petition is allowed to the above
extent.

¶30

7. The parties shall act an

¶31

authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)(S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶33

SGA

Parbhani Education Society Parbhani through Its President Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Engineer v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parbhani Education Society Parbhani through Its President Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Engineer v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Deorao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinayak Vitthal Jadhav and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Digambar Erappa Manyar Vs the Secretary Rural Development Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Narayan Dhanaji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shodhan Yashwant Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sajed Ahmed Ikramoddin and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others