GAJANAN SHAHU KERIPALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-57
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on April 30,2020

Gajanan Shahu Keripale Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.SHINDE, J. - (1.) Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner is challenging legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 23rd January, 2017 passed by the Respondent No. 5 Education Officer, thereby rejecting proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner made by Respondent No. 6 Educational Institution for the post of Shikshan Sevak at the Respondent No. 7 Secondary School and further seeks direction to Respondent No. 5 Education Officer to grant the said proposal and issue order granting individual approval to appointment of Petitioner.
(3.) Brief facts for filing this Petition can be summarized as under: Petitioner is B.A.D.Ed. It is the case of Petitioner that in view of Rule 21 of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and Government Resolutions issued in view thereof the Respondent No. 5 Education Officer sanctioned teaching and non-teaching posts in Respondent No. 7 Secondary School for the academic year 2012-13. The staff schedule of the academic year 2013-2014 was sanctioned by Respondent No. 5 Education Officer in the month of September, 2014 i.e. after expiry of academic year 2013-14. It is the case of the Petitioner that due to retirement of teachers / Head Master on 31.05.2014 vacancies of posts of Shikshan Sevaks / Assistant Teacher (Probationary) were available in the Respondent No. 7 Secondary School. Therefore, the representative of Respondent No. 6 Educational Institution approached to the office of Respondent No. 5 Education Officer to ascertain whether any suitable candidate was available for the said post of Shikshan Sevaks. However, information of suitable surplus candidate was not available with the office of the Respondent No. 5 Education Officer. Therefore, on 10.05.2014 the Respondent Management submitted letter-cum-application to Respondent No. 5 Education Officer seeking permission for issuing advertisement. However, the Respondent No. 5 Education Officer did not give any reply to the said letter-cum-application. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 6 Educational Institution also sent letter to office of the Directorate of Employment and Self-employment Guidance Centre, Kolhapur, Project Officer and Integrated Tribal Development Project, the Commissionerate of Tribal, Nashik, the Social Welfare Office, Kolhapur. However, said Authorities also did not communicate name of any candidate. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.