Read Time: 09 minutes
The high court in its order observed that the education department had persisted in continuing an inflexible approach and warned that it would impose costs on officers.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale recently observed that the court would start imposing costs on government officers personally if the orders of the court are brazenly ignored.
"We have noted the earlier decision of this Court in the matter of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal & Ors (supra) in which the Education Department of the very same Kolhapur region has already suffered an adverse decision on the same ground. The decisions of this Court have been ignored resulting in multiple litigations on the same issue. We make it clear that this is the last time we will refrain from making an order of costs. If officers of the government continue to brazenly ignore orders of this Court, we will, in future, start imposing costs personally on the officers concerned," the court observed
The high court was hearing a plea filed by an employee who was appointed as a teacher due to the vacancy of a permanent employee. The Deputy Director of the Education of the State of Maharashtra through an order of March 2020 refused to grant approval for the appointment of the employee as the ‘Shikshan Sevak’ in the junior college.
In accordance with the mandate of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”), the school enquired about the availability of surplus candidates from the Deputy Director of the Education Department. However, receiving neither a reply nor a surplus candidate nominee for an appointment, the school commenced the procedure to fill up the vacancy. The management issued an advertisement and also conducted an exam. After the said process, the petitioner was appointed on probation in June 2019.
Senior Advocate Narendra Bhadinwenkar appearing for the petitioner argued that the deputy director failed to convey to the school that the permission for selection process cannot be granted or that it has been refused for any reason. He pointed out that after an expiry of more than seven months, in the absence of a response of any kind, the management proceeded with the selection procedure.
AGP MV Mali appearing for the State argued that the management was in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012 which mandated a ‘No Objection’ to be taken from the State Government prior to commencing a selection procedure for filling up any post. It was further argued that through another government resolution dated 23rd June 2017, the Government had introduced a transparent selection process for appointing teachers in all schools through a ‘Pavitra Portal'
The court disagreed with the contentions of the AGP and said that the same GR specifically casts a duty on the department to nominate a surplus candidate to fill up a vacant post as soon as the management informs the department of a vacancy required to be filled. The court said that the GR specifies that the department must discharge its obligation promptly and immediately upon receiving a request from the management. Therefore, the court concluded that the department cannot selectively point to the duties of the management without first performing its own duty and refusing approval.
The court noted that the management was well within its rights to commence the selection process in the absence of any response from the Deputy Director and State and that no lapse had been pointed out by the respondents in respect of the selection procedure.
The bench then directed the Deputy Director to grant the requisite approval to the appointment of the petitioner as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ from the date of his appointment and include his name in the Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
The division bench pointed out that the matter was covered in a recent decision of the high court where a similar order was passed and the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur region was respondent to that order and was also respondent in the present matter.
The high court in its order added that the education department had persisted in continuing an inflexible approach.
"Despite the previous decision, the Education Department of the same region has persisted in continuing its inflexible approach and has repeated itself over again. This is unacceptable and we deprecate the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the Education Department of the Kolhapur region," the bench added.
Case title: Rajan Sahadeo Ratu & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
Please Login or Register
