Shila Somaji Kolekar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

passed by the Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli is identical in the matters. So also, both the employees are from the same institute.

¶22

3. In both the petitions, it is not disputed that Respondent No.6Educational Institution issued the advertisement in daily newspaper

¶23

1 of 8

¶24

Patil-SR

¶25

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶26

“Karmyogi” on 4^th September 2009. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the Petitioners applied for the posts and then by conducting the selection process, the co-ordination committee of Respondent No.6-educational institution decided to appoint the Petitioners against the posts of Assistant Teachers on unaided classes.

¶27

4. In pursuance of the resolution of co-ordination committee, the appointment orders came to be issued to the Petitioners on 30^th September 2019. The Petitioners accordingly joined the posts with efect from 1^st October 2019 and are working on the same posts till date.

¶28

5. It is also pointed out by the Petitioners that after their appointment, due to outbreak of covid-19 and lock-down situation, the headmaster of Respondent No.7-secondary school could not immediately submit the proposals for individual approval to the appointments of the Petitioners, but immediately when there was relaxation to the lockdown, on 14^th December 2020 the proposals were forwarded to the the Respondent No.5 – Education Oicer.

¶29

6. The proposals dated 14^th December 2020 were returned back pointing out certain deiciencies in the proposals. Therefore, again on 29^th July 2022, the headmaster of Respondent No.7–school submitted the proposals for individual approvals of the Petitioners. In response to the same, again deiciencies were pointed out by the Education Oicer

¶30

2 of 8

¶31

Patil-SR

¶32

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶33

and lastly the proposals were submitted on 28^th April 2023 to the oice of Education Oicer. The Education Oicer by the impugned order / communication dated 9^th May 2023 has communicated to the headmaster of the school that for given eight reasons, the individual approval to the the Petitioners’ appointment cannot be granted. The said reasons are as under :

¶34

[1] The proposal is not submitted as per the check-list of oice;

¶35

[2] The advertisement for the post was not published in 2 newspapers as per Government Resolution dated 6^th February 2012;

¶36

[3] The State Government till date did not issue any instructions to grant approval to the teachers appointed in non-grant-in-aid schools;

¶37

[4] The documents enclosed along with the proposal are not countersigned;

¶38

[5] The roster duly approved by the Reservation Cell, Pune is not enclosed with the proposal;

¶39

[6] As per Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022, the proposal was required to be submitted within a period of 3 months, but the same was not submitted within 3 months;

¶40

[7] The Shikshan Sevak scheme is not applicable to the employees in non-grant-in-aid school; and

¶41

[8] The Attendance Register of the employees was not forwarded along with the proposal.

¶42

3 of 8

¶43

Patil-SR

¶44

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶45

7. In respect of these deiciencies, the submission of Petitioners is that deiciency Nos.1, 4, 5 and 8 can be complied with by them by providing necessary documents. In respect of deiciency Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, the Petitioners have made submission that all these deiciencies pointed by the Education Oicer are not in accordance with the law and therefore indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter.

¶46

8. In respect of advertisement in 2 newspapers as per Government Resolution dated 6^th February 2012, the Petitioners have pointed out that this deiciency pointed out by the Education Oicer is in violation of Rule 9 sub-clause (2-A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 [for short, “MEPS Rules” ]. According to them, Rule 9 provides the publication of advertisement in at least one local newspaper having wide circulation in the region. Accordingly, the management has published the advertisement in widely circulated newspaper “Karmyogi” and therefore this deiciency raised by the Education Oicer needs to be set aside.

¶47

9. In respect of deiciency no.3 that there are no instructions from the State Government regarding grant of approval to the teachers appointed in non-grant-in-aid in schools, it is pointed out that as per Section 3 of the the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 [for short, “MEPS Act” ], the provisions of the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules are equally applicable to the

¶48

4 of 8

¶49

Patil-SR

¶50

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶51

employees appointed on grant-in-aid as well as non-grant-in-aid classes. Therefore, this deiciency pointed out by the Eduction Oicer does not stand and therefore the Petitioners who are appointed by following due procedure of law are entitled for the grant of approval.

¶52

10. In respect of deiciency no.6 that, the proposals should have been submitted within 3 months as per Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022, the Petitioners have pointed out that after their appointment on 30^th September 2019, immediately the proposals were submitted. It is also pointed out that time and again certain deiciencies were pointed out and therefore lastly the proposals were submitted on 20^th April 2023, therefore this deiciency raised by the Education Oicer is incorrect. Furthermore, as per Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022, the mandate was that those employees who are working in a private school and whose proposals are not till date forwarded, it was directed that same should be submitted within 3 months after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022. Hence, this Government Resolution is not applicable in the matter.

¶53

11. Deiciency no.7 that Shikshan Sevak scheme is not applicable to the employees of non-grant-in-aid school is correct, however, in the present case, the Petitioners are not appointed as Shikshan Sevak, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers. Hence, this deiciency pointed out by the Education Oicer is incorrect.

¶54

5 of 8

¶55

Patil-SR

¶56

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶57

12. Learned AGP strongly opposed the present petitions stating that deiciencies pointed out by the Education Oicer are in accordance with law and the relevant Government Policy. Therefore, according to him, it is not a it case for interference by this Court in the matter. He further pointed out that the Education Oicer by his communication dated 9^th May 2023 has only pointed out the deiciencies and the Petitioners always have a right to satisfy those deiciencies and get the approval. Hence, the petitions are premature.

¶58

13. Learned AGP further stated that by Government Resolution dated 20^th June 2018, the scheme of Pavitra Portal is applicable to the employees appointed on non-grant-in-aid classes and though this deiciency / objection is not recorded in the impugned communication dated 9^th May 2023, is also one of the major deiciencies that can be considered by this Court to reject the proposals of Petitioners for grant of approval. Hence, according to him, there is no merit in the present petitions and therefore the same deserve to be dismissed.

¶59

14. In the light of above submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not disputed that the advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 on 4^th September 2019 in daily newspaper “Karmyogi”. In pursuance of the same, selection process was carried out and accordingly by order dated 30^th September 2019, the Petitioners were appointed against the post of Assistant Teachers at the

¶60

6 of 8

¶61

Patil-SR

¶62

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶63

Respondent No.7 school on unaided classes.

¶64

15. In our opinion, Rule 9 sub-clause (2-A) of MEPS Rules contemplates the advertisement to be published in at least one newspaper. Accordingly, the management has issued advertisement in daily newspaper “Karmyogi”. Hence, the deiciency pointed out that advertisement was not issued in 2 daily newspapers is not justiied in the matter.

¶65

16. In respect of deiciency that there are no directions of the State Government to grant approval to the employees appointed in the nongrant-in-aid school, in our opinion, as per Section 3 of MEPS Act there is no discrimination between the employees appointed on grant-in-aid classes and non-grant-in-aid classes. Therefore, there is no need of any instructions from the State Government in the matter.

¶66

17. The Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022 is not applicable in the matter because admittedly, after the appointment of Petitioners, before the Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022 came into operation, the proposals were forwarded to the oice of Education Oicer. Hence, this deiciency also does not survive in the matter.

¶67

18. In respect of non applicability of the scheme of Shikshan Sevak to non-grant-in-aid classes is correct, but the same is not applicable in the matter as the Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers.

¶68

19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the

¶69

7 of 8

¶70

Patil-SR

¶71

912 wp-6783-2024(c).doc

¶72

Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli has wrongly recorded deiciency Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 in the impugned communication dated 9^th May 2023. In view of the above, in our opinion, the following order will subserve the ends of justice in the matter. Hence, we proceed to pass following order. :

¶73

-: O R D E R :-

¶74

(I) Petition is partly allowed.

¶75

(II) The impugned order / communication dated 9^th May 2023 to the extent of imposing condition Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶76

(III) Respondent No.6-Institute and Respondent No.7-Headmaster of the school are hereby directed to forward fresh proposals to the Education Oicer within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, to the Education Oicer.

¶77

(IV) The Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli after receipt of proposals, ix a date for hearing on proposals and after considering the submissions of the parties decide the proposals within 15 days thereafter without insisting conditions which are set aside by this Court.

¶78

(V) All the issues are expressly kept open to be raised and decided by the Education Oicer.

¶79

(VI) No order as to costs.

¶80

20. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶81

[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

¶82

8 of 8

¶83

Patil-SR

Shila Somaji Kolekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Shila Somaji Kolekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Ashwini Ajay Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Secretary and Ors.

Shubhamraje Kailas Satpute vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Other Backward Classes Welfare Dept.

Manisha Shivaji Nikam and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.