Allowed

Shabeena Bano Akhtar Hussain and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Mar 2017WP/4882/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India ruled that minority institutions have the right to determine their own teaching staff without state interference. The petitioners sought appointment to a primary school, which was refused. The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.12.2015 was quashed, and the petitioner is directed to consider the appointment proposal within three months.

Shabeena Bano Akhtar Hussain and Another Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp 4882.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4882 of 2016

¶5

1 Shabeena Bano Akhtar Hussain Age: 35 years, Occu: Service, R/o Chand Tara Chowk, Dhule Taluka and District Dhule

¶6

2 Amera Bano Mohammad Sidique, Age: 28 years, Occu. Service, R/o Aksanagar, Vadjai Road, Dhule, Taluka & District Dhule Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶9

2 The Director of Education (Primary) Central Building, Pune

¶10

3 The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule

¶11

4 The Young Boys Education & Industrial Circle, Aksanagar, Vadjai Road, Dhule Through its President / Secretary

¶12

5 Jakariya Aghadi Urdu Primary School, Aksanagar, Vadjai Road, Dhule, through Its Head Master Respondents

¶13

Mr.P.V. Barde advocate for the petitioners Mr.A.R. Kale, AGP for Respondent No.1 to 3

¶14

Mr. A.N. Sabnis h/f Mr. D.R. Jethliya advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5

wp 4882.16.odt

{2}

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

P.R. BORA, JJ

(Date : 15TH March, 2017.)

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(Per: R.M. BORDE, J)

¶22

1 Heard.

¶23

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

¶24

3 Proposal forwarded by respondent No.5 school to respondent No.3, seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioners has been turned down on the ground of failure of the management and the school to accommodate surplus teachers. It is recorded in the communication dated 28.12.2015 issued by the Education Officer, Zilha Parishad, Dhule that, unless the surplus teachers in Dhule district are accommodated, approval cannot be accorded to the appointment of the petitioners.

¶25

4 The petitioners place reliance on the Judgment dated 7.1.2016 delivered by the division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition(No.7806/15) presented by respondent No.4 institution objecting to the condition in respect of accommodation of surplus

¶26

{3} wp 4882.16.odt

¶27

teachers insisted upon by the Education Officer. While disposing of the petition presented by respondent No.4 institution, it has been held by the Division Bench that, the condition warranting the minority institution to accommodate surplus teachers cannot be insisted upon, since such an insistence affects the freedom available to the minority institution in view of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶28

5 In view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in a petition presented by respondent No.4, the order impugned in the instant petition issued by the Education Officer dated 28.12.2015 does not sustain and deserves to be quashed and set aside and same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to consider the proposal for according approval to the appointment of the petitioners, in accordance with provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶29

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶30

7 There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M. BORDE, J)

¶32

vbd

Shabeena Bano Akhtar Hussain and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabeena Bano Akhtar Hussain and Another 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

M/S Wejays Enterprises Jalgaon through Its Partner Sanjay Jaykrishna Love Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nitin Nagnathrao Jadhav and Others Vs the Joint Secretary Union of India and Others

Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Managing Director Vs the Union of India and Others

Harinam Sadashiv Kolamwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jekamsing Amarsing Padwi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Gautam Baburao Maske and Others