NUTAN VIDYALAYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 society runs a school known as Nutan Vidyalaya at Sailu District Parbhani and also runs another school known as L. L. R. Girls School which is a Girls Secondary School. Petitioner No. 1 also runs Junior Colleges.

(2.) ON 1st of May, 1987 the petitioner society appointed one Shri V. H. Datar who was then the senior most Assistant Teacher to the post of Head Master and appointed Shri R. A. Giri, the petitioner No. 2 to the post of an Assistant Head Master. Both the appointments were approved by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad who is the respondent No. 3 herein, by a communication dated 24th September, 1987.

(3.) SHRI V. H. Datar, the Head Master of Nutan Vidyalaya retired on 30th April, 1989, Shri R. A. Giri, the petitioner No. 2, who was then the Assistant Head Master informed the management in writing on 9th June, 1989 that on account of domestic difficulties he was unable to accept the post of a Head Master for a period of two years. Hence, the petitioner appointed Shri M. S. Kondapalli, the senior most amongst the Assistant Teachers, who was also working as a Supervisor, as the Head Master. The management sought the approval of the respondent No. 3 for appointment of Shri Kondapalli to the post of a Head Master but the respondent No. 3 declined to grant the approval on the ground that the post of the Head Master should be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate on a 50 point roster scale. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of respondent No. 3 for reconsideration and the petitioner was, in turn, asked to approach the respondent No. 2 by the Director of Education vide his letter dated 21st May, 1991. In the meanwhile, Shri M. S. Kondapalle retired on 30th April, 1991 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner No. 2 who belongs to the Nomadic Tribe category and who was already working as an Assistant Head Master was then appointed as the Head Master by the petitioner No. 1 management. Approval was sought for the appointment of petitioner No. 2 which also was rejected by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the post was reserved for schedule caste only. By the present petition the management of the school as well as the petitioner No. 2 have challenged the order of the respondent No. 3 refusing the approval.