Masumiya Urdu Education Society, Malkapur, Thr. President and Others vs the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:1313-DB

¶2

J-wp4820.25.odt 1/5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.4820 OF 2025

¶6

Masumiya Urdu Education Society, Malkapur, Regd. No.F-86, through its President, Tah. Malkapur, District – Buldhana. 2. Z. A. Urdu High School and Junior College, through its Head Master, Muktai Nagar Road, Malkapur, Tah. Malkapur, District – Buldhana. 3. Saiyyad Nadeem Juber S/o Saiyyad Firoz, Aged about 38 years, Occu.: Service as Lab. Assistant, R/o. Ward No.24, Baradari, Malkapur, Tah. Malkapur, District - Buldhana. : PETITIONERS

¶7

... VERSUS ...

¶8

The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati.

¶9

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.

¶10

The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune, Dist. Pune. : RESPONDENTS

¶11

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶12

Mr. Ram Karode, Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs. Hemlata Dhande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶13

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶14

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2026.

¶15

J-wp4820.25.odt 2/5

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶18

The petition takes exception to the communication dated 18.6.2025 issued by the respondent No.1 Deputy Director of Education, Amravati and for further direction to include the name of the petitioner No.3 in the Shalarth Pranali and allot Shalarth ID.

¶19

We have heard Mr. Ram Karode, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Hemlata Dhande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶20

By taking us through the impugned order dated 18^th June, 2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only reason given in the said communication is that till the employees who have been declared surplus have been absorbed, Shalarth ID could not be granted.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner No.1 being a minority institution, the said reason is totally misconceived. He places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 2016(2) Mh.L.J. 212 (Young Boys Educational and Industrial Circle Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) , as also judgment reported in 2015(3) ALL MR 575 (The Canossa Society

¶22

J-wp4820.25.odt 3/5

¶23

and another Vs. The Commissioner Social Welfare and others ). By placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel submits that as far as petitioner No.1 is concerned the direction regarding absorbing the surplus staff is not maintainable.

¶24

We have perused the said judgments as also considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. The issue seems to be covered by the authorities i.e. co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by exhaustively enunciating the law in the case of Canossa Society and another (supra) that a minority educational institution cannot be made to absorb the surplus staff.

¶25

The controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by an authoritative pronouncement of this court in Canossa Society and another vs Commissioner, Social Welfare, Directorate, Government of Maharashtra and Others (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 536) and more particularly para 22 thereof which reads as under :

¶26

There is merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present case by the impugned directive dated 17.6.2011 the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have foisted upon the petitioners the appointment of the respondent no.4 who is rendered a surplus employee in view of the closure of a school situate in Nanded District. Admittedly, there is no consultation with petitioner no.2-school before such appointment is thrusted upon the petitioner no.2school. The respondent-authorities have also failed to take into consideration the fact that there is no

¶27

J-wp4820.25.odt 4/5

¶28

vacancy as urged by the petitioners before the authorities, in view of the appointment of Mrs.Jyotsna Thorat who came to be appointed on 30.9.2006 and whose appointment was approved on 18.8.2007. Consequence of the impugned order issued by the respondent no.1 is that the approved appointment of Mrs.Jyotsna Thorat as validly done by the petitioner No.2-institution in exercise of its right to administer a minority educational institution is being interfered, coupled with a consequence that such valid appointment would be required to be cancelled. In our considered opinion it is impermissible for respondent nos. 1 to 3 to resort to such an action of foisting appointment of respondent no.4 on the petitioner no.1-institution as it directly infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India conferred on the petitioner no.2 institution to administer and establish wp1049.12.doc petitioner no.2 school. The State authorities cannot indirectly do an act which cannot directly be done. In other words, when the State has no authority to make appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in respect of a minority institution,even if aid has been granted, such action of making an appointment cannot be taken by directing absorption of a surplus employee. This is nothing but, making appointment of a staff member in a minority institution. The law confers no such authority and power with the State Government to thrust an employee rendered surplus in other schools to be absorbed by a minority institution. Rule 25 A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules cannot be made applicable to appoint surplus staff in a minority institution unless the minority institution is consulted and concurs for such an appointment. We, therefore have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order dated 17.6.2011 issued bay respondent no.1 is wholly arbitrary and illegal as the same infringes on the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India.”

¶29

J-wp4820.25.odt 5/5

¶30

The view has been followed in Young Boys Education and Industrial Circle vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 212.

¶31

In view of the citations stated supra, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned communication is liable to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order :

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(ii) The impugned communication dated 18.6.2025,

¶34

issued by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶35

(iii) It is hereby directed that the respondent No.1

¶36

Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati should include the name of petitioner No.3 - Saiyyad Nadeem Juber S/o Saiyyad Firoz in the Shalarth Pranali and allot the Shalarth ID in his name and grant him all consequential benefits ensuing therefrom.

¶37

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above said terms.

¶38

(v) The petition is disposed of.

¶39

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶40

wadode

¶41

Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/01/2026 11:04:59

Masumiya Urdu Education Society, Malkapur, Thr. President and Others v. the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masumiya Urdu Education Society, Malkapur, Thr. President and Others v. the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deep S/O. Shyam Nandanwar vs the S.T. Certificate Verification Committee, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secretary

Vidisha D/O Sachin Nagpure, Thr. Her Natural Guardian, Father, Sachin Sudhakar Nagpure vs the S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member-Secretary, Armavati

Mrs. Manju Anant Khodwe (Before Marriage Manju Madhukar Gachkal) vs Union of India, through Its Cabinet Secretary, President House, New Delhi and Others

Sunil Sadashiv Gowardipe vs Shri. Ranjit Singh Deol, Principal Secy., School Education and Sports Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

Gramin Uddhar Society, Kamthee, Nagpur Thr. President, Deorao Santoshraoji Radke Anr. Ors. vs Rohini Vitthalrao Kumbhar

Sunanda Rajendra Mehere vs Municipal Corporation, Amravati, Thr. Its Commissioner, Amravati and Another