Smt. Anitabai Udesing Jadhav And ANR v. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zillla Parishad, Nashik And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6892 OF 2014 Shri. Roshan Kevalrao Thakare and others The Education Officer (Secondary), CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2922 OF 2014 WRIT PETITION NO.6892 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Shri. Roshan Kevalrao Thakare and others The Education Officer (Secondary), WRIT PETITION NO.6887 OF 2014 Shri. Pandit Vasant Jadhav ..Petitioner WRIT PETITION NO.6888 OF 2014 Shri. Ravindra Bhagavan Pathade ..Petitioner

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2667 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6888 OF 2014 Shri. Ravindra Bhagwan Pathade ..Respondent WRIT PETITION NO.6890 OF 2014 Smt. Anitabai Udesing Jadhav and another CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2669 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6890 OF 2014 Smt. Anitabai Udesing Jadhav and another WRIT PETITION NO.6891 OF 2014 Deepakkumar Shamrao Mahire and others CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2670 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6891 OF 2014 Deepakkumar Shamrao Mahire and others

WRIT PETITION NO.6893 OF 2014 Shri. Yogesh Dadaji Sonawane and others CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2671 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6893 OF 2014 Shri. Yogesh Dadaji Sonawane and others WRIT PETITION NO.6894 OF 2014 Rajendra Sakharam Pawar and others WRIT PETITION NO.6895 OF 2014 Shri. Mahesh Nanasaheb Jadhav ..Petitioner CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2672 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6895 OF 2014 Shri. Mahesh Nanasaheb Jadhav ..Respondent

WRIT PETITION NO.6896 OF 2014 Shri. Tushar Prabhakar Borse ..Petitioner CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2673 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6896 OF 2014 Shri. Tushar Prabhakar Borse ..Respondent WRIT PETITION NO.6897 OF 2014 Smt. Vaishali Yashwant Kakade ..Petitioner CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2674 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6897 OF 2014 Smt. Vaishali Yashwant Kakade ..Respondent WRIT PETITION NO.6909 OF 2014 Shri. Harshal Ashok Jadhav and others

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2675 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.6909 OF 2014 Shri. Harshal Ashok Jadhav and others WRIT PETITION NO.7727 OF 2014 Shri. Nitin Kadu Bedis and another CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2676 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.7727 OF 2014 Shri. Nitin Kadu Bedis and another Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions.

Mr. J. G. Reddy, Advocate for the Applicant in all the Civil Applications.

Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for Respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. C. G. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

DATE : 15th JANUARY, 2018 P.C.

1] For the reasons stated, the applications are allowed. The Applicants are permitted to intervene.

2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3] The Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 7th May 2014 and the order dated 5th May 2012.

4] It appears that the Petitioners are working in the schools under the management of Respondent No.3 - Nashik Zilla Vidayak Karya Samiti.

5] It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Petitioners in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Respondent No.3 had applied for the various posts of Shikshan Sevak. It is their further contention that the Respondent No.3 after following due selection process selected the Petitioners and appointed them by issuing various appointment orders.

6] The perusal of the orders impugned would reveal that the reasons given by the Respondent No.1 for not considering the cases of approval of the Petitioners are that there is a dispute pending with regard to the management of the Respondent No.3 and secondly, appointments were made without following the procedure like issuing advertisement etc.

7] Mr. J. G. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor submits that the appointments made by the body claiming to be in management of the Respondent No.3 are totally illegal. He submits that dispute with regard to the change report is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and as such body claiming to be in the management of Respondent No.3 could not have made appointments. 8] We find that the Respondent No.1 has erred in not considering the proposals for grant of approval on the ground that there is a dispute pending with regard to the management of the Respondent No.3. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Janrao Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011(1) Mh.L.J.

849 has clearly held that the Education Officer has no authority to go into the question regarding the dispute between two groups of the management. It has been held that such an issue can be considered only by the competent authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. In that view of the matter, we find that refusal to consider the proposals on the said ground would not be sustainable in law.

9] In so far as the other aspect is concerned, no doubt that the appointments are required to be made following due procedure of law

including issuing of advertisement etc.

10] We therefore quash and set aside the impugned orders and direct the Respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter afresh by permitting the Petitioners as well as Respondent No.3 to place the material on record in support of their submissions, that the appointments were made after following due selection process.

11] Needless to state that after reconsideration, the Respondent No.1 shall pass order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today.

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]