Gyanrao Namdevrao Shirsat v. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola And 2 Others

2203wp3621.15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3621 OF 2015 (Gyanrao Namdevrao Shirsat vs. Education Officer (Secondary) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.

--------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 22, 2016 Heard Adv. Kilor for petitioner no.1 Assistant Teacher and petitioner nos.2 and 3, i.e. Society and its School. Shri Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Education Officer is seeking time. Adv. Kilor points out that this Court has issued notice in the matter on 30/6/2015.

In this situation, we have considered the controversy on merits.

Perusal of the impugned order dated 25/2/2015 shows refusal on the part of respondent to consider the proposal for grant of approval forwarded by petitioner nos.2 and 3 to him on the ground that in Writ Petition No. 1193/2007 when compromise was reached on 21/7/2014, it was without consent of Education Officer.

2203wp3621.15 2/2 It is apparent that consent by Education Officer is not necessary for entering into any compromise. The Education Officer has to find out whether petitioner no.1 was recruited properly in accordance with provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and if he finds nothing wrong with the recruitment, then only because the matter is compromised before this Court, he cannot refuse approval.

As such, we find that the impugned communication dated 25/2/2015 is suffering from nonapplication of mind. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.

The respondent Education Officer to apply his mind afresh to the proposal submitted by petitioner nos.2 and 3 within further period of four weeks from today.

Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Needless to mention that other contentions and defences available to the parties in the matter are kept open and can be looked into at appropriate time, if occasion therefor arises. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE khj