High Court
Legal Reasoning
wp-12826.23-order5proposals should be made, in our considered opinion,within some reasonable period of time.6.As per the case put up by the petitioner himself, hewas appointed on 1st June 2018 and the proposal by themanagement of the school seeking approval to hisappointment by the Education Officer was sent on 3rdAugust 2023, which is clearly after a lapse of period ofmore than five years. It is true that if any lapse hasoccurred on the part of the school management to sendthe proposal for appointment of the petitioner with suchdelay, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for thesame. However, it is equally not understandable that aperson having been appointed as assistant teacher, willkeep on teaching without salary for five years and willnot take any action in respect of approval to hisappointment as per the requirement of the Rules.7.Recruitment and appointment of the assistantteachers in private schools are governed by theMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of wp-12826.23-order6Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 ( hereinafter referred toas “the Rules of 1981”) which have been framed underSection 16(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Employees ofPrivate Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,1977 (hereinafter refereed to as “the Act of 1977”). Rule9 of the Rules of 1981 provides for ‘appointment of thestaff’. According to Rule 9(2A), the management of theprivate school has to advertise the vacancies for the postof teacher in details of subjects, with Bindunamavali onthe online software programme developed by theGovernment or an agency authorized by the Governmentin at least one local newspaper having wide circulation inthe region, and also notify the vacancies to theEmployment Exchange Centre of the District and DistrictSocial Welfare Officer. 8.Even if the submission of learned counsel for thepetitioner is accepted that since at the time ofappointment of the petitioner which was made on 1stJune 2018, Pavitra Portal was not functioning, themanagement of the institution was still required to
Arguments
wp-12826.23-order1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.12826 OF 2023Prakash Daulat Patil,Age-33 years, Occu:Service,R/o-At Post Malshevge,Tq-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Primary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,2) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,3) The Headmaster, Sane Guruji Vidhya Mandir, Derabardi, Tq-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Abasaheb D. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. Ashwin V. Hon Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin B. Munde Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. L.S. Mahajan Advocate for Respondent No.3. … wp-12826.23-order2 CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 26th JULY, 2024 ORDER :1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedAGP for State, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / ZillaParishad and learned counsel for respondent No.3-institution. 2.The petitioner claims that he has been appointed onthe post of assistant teacher in Sane Guruji VidhyaMandir, Derabardi, Taluka-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon.He is challenging the order dated 21st September 2023passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,Jalgaon, whereby the approval sought to theappointment of the petitioner has been declined on twogrounds, namely, (i) that the proposal seeking approvalto the appointment as assistant teacher was sent afterfive years from the date of appointment and (ii) that theappointment was not through the Pavitra Portal as perthe requirement of the rules. wp-12826.23-order33.In respect of the ground that the appointment wasnot made through the Pavitra Portal, it has been arguedby the learned counsel for the petitioner that theappointment of the petitioner was made on 1st June2018, whereas the Pavitra Portal started functioning witheffect from 20th June 2018 and accordingly the insistenceby the Education Officer for appointment of the petitionerthrough Pavitra Portal in the instant case is not justified.So far as the late submission of the proposal seekingapproval to the appointment of the petitioner as assistantteacher to the Education Officer is concerned, learnedcounsel for the petitioner stated that under the Rules /Government Resolutions, no time limit is provided.Further, to send the proposal for approval to theappointment to the Education Officer was theresponsibility of the management of the school andbecause of the inaction on the part of the managementof the school, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. wp-12826.23-order44.So far as the ground given by the Education Officerfor rejecting the proposal seeking approval to theappointment of the petitioner that the appointment wasnot made through Pavitra Portal is concerned, we mayrefer to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated30th November 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.2187 of2020 (Rajesh S/o Padmakar Bhangale and another vs.the State of Maharashtra and others), wherein it hasbeen held that admittedly the Pavitra Portal was notoperative till 20th June 2018. Thus, the said reasonindicated in the order cannot be said to be justified.5.However, as regards the delay in submission of theproposal seeking approval of appointment of thepetitioner, we may observe that though the Rules /Government Resolutions do not provide any time limit forsubmitting such proposals seeking approval of theEducation Officer of the Zilla Parishad, however, in anabsence of any time limit provided for such purposeunder the Rules / Government Resolutions, such
Decision
wp-12826.23-order7advertise the vacancy against which the petitioner claimshis appointment, in at least one local newspaper havingwide circulation in the region. The management was alsorequired to notify the vacancy to the EmploymentExchange Centre of the District and District SocialWelfare Officer.9.In respect of fulfillment of requirement under Rule9(2A) of Rules of 1981, reliance has been placed by thecounsel for the petitioner on an advertisement, which isavailable at Exhibit-B, appended to the Writ Petition. Theadvertisement appears to have been published in aweekly newspaper, “Pakshapramukh”, in its specialedition published on 1st May 2018. The document atExhibit-B to the Writ Petition discloses that the saidweekly newspaper was published from Jalgaon.10.In respect of the said advertisement published inweekly newspaper “Pakshapramukh”, we may observethat once the requirement under Rule 9(2A) of the Rulesof 1981 is publication of advertisement in at least one wp-12826.23-order8local newspaper having wide circulation, in our opinion,the said requirement cannot be said to have been fulfilledby publishing the advertisement in a weekly newspaper.From a bare perusal of Exhibit-B appended to the WritPetition, the circulation of the said weekly newspaperappears to be doubtful. As per the requirement underRule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981, the newspaper shouldhave wide circulation. Accordingly, such advertisement,in our opinion, is not as per the mandatory requirementof Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981.11.Further, we may also note that another requirementfor publication of advertisement regarding the vacancy isthat it should be notified to the Employment ExchangeCentre of the District and District Social Welfare Officer.There is nothing on record which establishes that thevacancy against which the petitioner claims hisappointment was ever notified to the EmploymentExchange Centre of the District or District Social WelfareBoard. wp-12826.23-order912.Employment of assistant teachers in private schoolsin the State of Maharashtra are not only governed by aState Legislation i.e. the Act of 1977 and the Rules of1981, but in aided schools burden of payment of salaryof such teachers is also borne by the State exchequer.Accordingly, any such employment lies in the realm ofthe public employment and hence the recruitment /selection / appointment of such teachers in private aidedschools has to be necessarily in conformity with thefundamental right enshrined under Article 16 of theConstitution of India. Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981requires that the advertisement of vacancy shall not onlybe published in at least one local newspaper having widecirculation but also that the vacancy will have to benotified to the Employment Exchange Centre of theDistrict and District Social Welfare Officer. The purpose isto provide equal opportunity to all eligible candidates toparticipate for appointment in public employment. If thevacancy against which the petitioner is said to have beenappointed has not been widely advertised, that itself wp-12826.23-order10would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution ofIndia, which is a fundamental right. 13.For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any goodground to entertain the instant Petition.14.Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.15.However, there shall be no order as to costs.(KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)asb/JULY24