NIVRUTTI MAROTRAO ANNAPURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a Writ of Mandamus against respondent No. 3 for payment of salary from January, 1989, till the date of oral termination i.e. 11.3.1991 with interest at the rate of 15%.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that he came to be appointed as Junior Clerk vide an order dated 29.6.1989 with effect from 1.1.1989 in the pay -scale of Rs. 950 -1,500 by respondent No. 3. Resolution dated 26.6.1989 passed by respondent No. 3 regarding the said appointment has been placed on record and by letter dated 11.3.1991 the said management had purportedly sent recommendations to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad. Parbhani, seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of Resolution dated 26.6.1989. Admittedly, the Education Officer did not grant the approval to the appointment of the petitioner till the alleged date of oral termination or even when his Appeal No. 26 of 1992 was pending before the Tribunal.

(3.) RULE 9 of the Rules deals with the appointment of staff and Sub -rule (4) of said Rule has fixed the lower and upper age limit for appointment. It reads thus : (4) The age limit for appointment to any post in a school shall be as follows, namely : - (a) for an appointment to be made to any post in a primary school, a candidate shall not be less than 18 years of age and more than 28 years of age and in the case of candidate belonging to the Backward Classes he shall not be more than 33 years of age : Provided that, upper age limit may be relaxed in case of women, ex -servicemen and person having previous experience with the previous permission of the Deputy Director.(b) for an appointment to be made to any post in any school other than primary school, a candidate shall not be below the age of 18 years. The petitioner obviously relies on the proviso to Sub -clause (4) of Sub -rule (4) and claims that he was legally appointed and therefore, he is entitled for a writ from this Court. We are not impressed by these submissions. It was necessary for respondent No. 3 management to forward Resolution dated 26.6.1989 and seek approval in advance from the Deputy Director of Education before the appointment order dated 29.6.1989 was issued to the petitioner. Unless such a previous sanction was obtained from the Deputy Director of Education the petitioner could not have been appointed and the appointment of the petitioner in such circumstances would be held to be illegal and invalid especially when he had already reached the age of 58 years as on 29.6.1989. If the petitioner's entry in the school of respondent No. 3 is not legal, there is no reason as to why he could be entitled to seek a writ from this Court. Section 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977, states that the provisions of the said Act shall apply to all the private schools in the State whether receiving any grant -in -aid from the State Government or not and therefore, the appointments made by the said private schools, whether aided or unaided, must comply with the requirements of Rule 9 of the Rules. The petitioner's appointment does not meet these requirements.