(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 21 February, 2015 passed by the Director of Vocational Education and Training i.e. Respondent No. 3 to refuse to, grant approval for appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The order is mainly challenged on the ground that the authority concerned i.e. Respondent No. 3 has erroneously considered that Rule 9(7) to 9(10) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981' (for short, MEPS Rules), are also applicable in the matter of institution 'established, run and administered by non -aided, minority institutions/trusts, as that of the Petitioners: The order is also assailed on the ground that no proper opportunity of hearings was given to Petitioners so as to explain and convince the authority concerned that the said provisions of law are not applicable in the matter of appointments to be made to the Petitioner's institution. In support of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of St. Francis de Sales Education Society and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., : 2002 (1) Bom. C.R. 650 wherein, this Court has ruled that the Sub -Rules (7) to (10) of Rule of MEPS Rules 1981 are not applicable in the matter of unaided minority institutions.
(2.) IN this context, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited our attention to paragraph 36 of said judgment, wherein, the Full Bench of this Court in the case based on identical facts ruled as under:
(3.) WE , therefore, pass the following order: - -