The Bombay High Court has rejected a plea seeking approval for a teacher’s appointment at an aided higher secondary school, holding that the school management failed to obtain prior permission from the competent education authority before initiating the recruitment process and submitted the proposal for approval nearly five years after the appointment.
A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and P.P. Khar-Patil Education Society, challenging the rejection of the proposal seeking approval for Thakur’s appointment as a full-time Shikshan Sevak.
The petitioners sought approval for her appointment from June 17, 2017, to June 16, 2020, along with grant-in-aid towards her honorarium for that period. They also sought approval for her subsequent appointment as a full-time assistant teacher from June 17, 2020, along with salary arrears and consequential benefits.
The school management had advertised the vacancy in May 2017 and appointed the petitioner in June that year. However, the proposal seeking approval was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education only on July 4, 2022. The education authorities rejected the proposal, citing multiple deficiencies in the recruitment process.
The High Court noted that the management had failed to obtain prior permission or a no-objection certificate from the competent authority before issuing the recruitment advertisement. It also found that the updated reservation roster had not been submitted before the appointment and that the management had failed to explain the delay of nearly five years in seeking approval.
The Bench held that the statutory requirements under Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules had been breached. It relied on earlier judgments holding that prior permission from the Education Officer before issuing a recruitment advertisement is mandatory and that recruitment procedures cannot be bypassed when seeking approval for appointments in aided schools.
The Court observed that there was no justification for the management’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements or for the substantial delay in submitting the proposal.
“
“If the petitioner’s case is to be accepted, it would amount to the Court condoning the requirement of law as set out hereinabove,” the Bench observed.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it without costs.
