Allowed

Seema Lahu Kolhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Nov 2016WP/5937/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order refusing appointment approval in a minority school based on a Government Resolution requiring absorption of surplus staff. The Court held that Articles 30(1) protect the institution's choice and quashed the order, directing reconsideration without applying the Regulation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing approval was quashed. The Education Officer was directed to reconsider the proposal within eight weeks without being bound by the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012.

Seema Lahu Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 5937 of 2016

¶3

Smt. Seema Lahu Kolhe,
Age : 33 years, Occu. Service,
St. Mary's High School,
Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad PETITIONER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶6

2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad

¶7

3. St. Mary's High School, Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad, through its Head Mistress RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 2

¶9

CORAM :R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 18th November, 2016

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.) :

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶13

the consent of the parties, the petition is heard

¶14

¶15

wp5937-2016

¶16

finally at the admission stage.

¶17

2.The petitioner is objecting to the order dated
3rd May, 2016, passed by respondent No. 2 – Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the
petitioner as Librarian in respondent No. 3 – School.

¶18

3.The petitioner came to be appointed as
Librarian in respondent No. 3 – Minority Institute in
the year 2014. A proposal was sent for grant of approval
to the appointment of the petitioner. However, the same

¶19

has been turned down on the ground referable to
Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 and Government
Circular dated 12th February, 2015 as well as on the
ground that the approval cannot be accorded unless the
surplus employees from the cadre are absorbed. The
petitioner contends that the Government Resolution
referred in the impugned order does not apply to the
Minority Institution and further that the Minority
Institution cannot be compelled to accommodate the
surplus employees. The reliance is placed on the
judgment dated 16th July, 2012 delivered in Writ Petition
No. 116 of 2012, to which one of us (R.M. Borde, J.) is

¶20

¶21

wp5937-2016

¶22

a member, in which it has been observed in paragraph

¶23

Nos. 13 and 14 as follows :

¶24

“13. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, it is clear that the law which interferes with a minority's choice of qualified teachers or its disciplinary control over teachers and other members of the staff of the institution would be void as being violative of Article 30(1). It is, of course, permissible for the State and its educational authorities to prescribe the qualifications of teachers, but once the teachers possessing the requisite qualifications are selected by the minorities for their educational institutions, the State would have no right to veto the selection of those teachers. The right to have the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer an educational institution. So long as the persons chosen have the qualifications prescribed by the University, the choice must be left to the management and this is facet of fundamental right of the minorities to administer the educational institutions established by them. It is made clear by the judgments of the Supreme Court, cited above, that making appointment of teacher is a part of

¶25

wp5937-2016

¶26

¶27

regular administration and management of the educational institution and, therefore, minority institutions have right to appoint a teacher selected and chosen by them and nobody can force upon the minority institutions to appoint a particular person who is not selected by it as a teacher.

¶28

14. 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.”

¶29

4.In the instant petition, the undisputed fact is
that the institution of which the petitioner is an
employee, is a Minority Institution and as has been held
by this Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No.3707
of 2013, relying on the decision in Writ Petition No.
116 of 2012, decided on 16th July, 2012 that the
appointments by Minority Institution are not liable to
be withheld resorting to Government Resolution dated 2nd

¶30

5 wp5937-2016

¶31

May, 2012, detention of proposal of the petitioner

¶32

seeking approval to his appointment, is incompatible
with the legal position, particularly having regard to
the decision of the Supreme Court and the High Court. In
this view of the matter, the order dated 3rd May, 2016,
impugned in this petition, is not maintainable and
deserves to be quashed and set aside and it is
accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶33

5.Respondent no. 2 – Education Officer

¶34

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad is directed to
reconsider the proposal for according approval to the
appointment of the petitioner on the post of Librarian
in accordance with law and without being detained by
Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012. The decision

¶35

on the said proposal shall be taken within a period of
eight weeks from today.

¶36

6.Rule is made absolute in the above terms with

¶37

no order as to costs.

¶38

npj/wp5937-2016

Seema Lahu Kolhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Lahu Kolhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Rajaram Nivrutti Jeve and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Tamboli Mubarak Rashidmiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ankush Mahadev Balane and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Osmanabad District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Shri Tuljabhawani Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Osmanabad

Chandrakant Dattatraye Kokate Vs Ramling Nivrutti Shinde and Others

Prakash Mahadeo Ekbote and Anothers Vs Shailesh Nawal