Allowed

Maharashtra Ratri Pathashala Shiksha Samiti through Its Secretary and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC29 Aug 2016WP/4552/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed the Zilla Parishad's refusal to approve petitions, relying on Article 30(1) supremacy over RTE for minority institutions. The court directed the officer to reconsider appointments expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 13.4.2016 refusing approval and directed the Education Officer to consider appointment proposals within four weeks.

Maharashtra Ratri Pathashala Shiksha Samiti through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 4552.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4552 OF 2016

¶5

1.	Maharashtra Ratri Pathashala Shiksha Samiti, Jalna Tq. & Dist. Jalna through its Secretary.
2.	Shri Venkatesh Vyankayya Gorantyal Primary School, Jalna Tq. & Dist. Jalna, through its Head Master
3.	Uddhav S/o Dnyandev Shinde, Age: 26 years, occu: service as Shikshan Sevak R/o At Post Pirkalyan Tq. And Dist. Jalna
4.	Kailas S/o Babasaheb Ingole, Age: 24 years, occu: service as Shikshan Sevak, R/o Dharkalyan Tq. And Dist. Jalna
5.	Kundlik S/o Bhanudas Rathod, Age: 25 years, occu: service as Shikshan Sevak, R/o Wadgaon, Tq. And dist. Jalna
6.	Bhushan S/o Govindsingh Rajput, Age: 29 years, occu: Service as Shikshan Sevak, R/o Kanchan Nagar, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna	Petitioners
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶6

{2} wp 4552.16.odt 2 The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Jalna Dist. Jalna Respondents

¶7

Mr. V.S. Panpatte advocate for the petitioners

¶8

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1 Mr. S.S. Tope, advocate for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶12

1 Heard.

¶13

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision at admission stage.

¶14

3 The petitioners are praying for quashment of the order passed by respondent No.2, refusing to accord approval to the appointments of petitioners Nos.3 to 6 as Shikshan Sevak in the petitioner No.2 school. The impugned orders have been issued by respondent No.2 on 13.4.2016.

¶15

4 The petitioners contend that the petitioners No.3 to 6 possess requisite qualification for being appointed as Shikshan Sevek and were in fact appointed by the Management, in

¶16

{3} wp 4552.16.odt

¶17

observance of the procedure prescribed for making appointment, on 13.1.2016. Proposals were forwarded for granting approval of their appointments to the Education Officer. However, the Education Officer turned down the proposals by order dated 13.4.2016, mainly on the ground that, the teachers have not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test. The aforesaid condition in respect of passing Teachers Eligibility Test is prescribed pursuant to the directives issued under the provisions of Right to Education Act. Another ground for denial of approval is that, the institution, before making appointment has not secured approval from the Zilha Parishad and has failed to absorb three surplus teachers. Since the management has failed to abide by the directives in respect of absorption of surplus teachers, the Education Officer deemed it proper to refuse to grant approval to the appointments.

¶18

5 Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying upon the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & others Versus Union of India and others (2014 AIR SCW 2859) contends that, the provisions of Right to Education Act vis-a-vis a minority institutions have been held to be ultra virus the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In nutshell, it is contended that the minority institutions are not governed by the

¶19

{4} wp 4552.16.odt

¶20

provisions of Right to Education Act, since the provisions of the said Act are held to be ultra virus the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court, in the afore said matter. It is not permissible for the said authority to impose any restriction by taking recourse to provisions of Right to Education Act.

¶21

6 The Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.116 of 2012 adopted the said analogy, relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court. So far as the second ground raised by Zilha Parishad is concerned, reliance can be placed on the Judgment delivered by the single Judge of this Court (R.M. Borde) in Writ Petition No.116/2012 decided on 16.7.2012, wherein, it has been held that, the directions issued by the grievance committee to the Education Officer in respect of sending surplus teachers for being accommodated by the minority institution and mandate requiring the managements of minority institutions to absorb such teachers and prescription of consequences for breach of the directives issued by the Grievance Committee, is beyond the scope of interference in view of the rights guaranteed to the minority institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. The single Judge has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka &

¶22

{5} wp 4552.16.odt

¶23

others (reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481).

¶24

7 In view of the decision by this Court, on the basis of the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, it is not open for the Zilha Parishad to compel the minority institution to accept the surplus teachers for making appointment to the vacant posts. The order passed by the Education Officer dated 13.4.2016, refusing to accord approval is devoid of substance and as such it is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to consider the proposal tendered by the Management for granting approval to the appointment of the Teachers in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

¶25

8 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶26

9 There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

(K.K. SONAWANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶28

vbd

Maharashtra Ratri Pathashala Shiksha Samiti through Its Secretary and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Ratri Pathashala Shiksha Samiti through Its Secretary and Others 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

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cidco, Aurangabad. Vs M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/S Johnson and Johnson Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. Vs M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Satish Bhagwanrao Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sukhdeo Vishwanath Tompe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gumfabai Ramdhan Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others