PANDURANG NARAYAN KANEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 5/11/2019 passed by respondent No.4 - The Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, whereby, Deputy Director cancelled the approval granted by respondent No.5 - The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Sindhudurg to the appointment of the petitioner as "Shikshan Sevak " on respondent No.7 - Wamanrao Mahadik Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Talere, Taluka - Kankavali managed by respondent No.6.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dtd. 21/8/2012, he was appointed as "Shikshan Sevak " by respondent No.6 by following due procedure as provided under The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "M.E.P.S Act ") and The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short "M.E.P.S Rules "). Before starting the appointment process, respondent No.6 sought an approval of a staff schedule for the academic year 2011-2012. The approval was accorded. An advertisement as required by law was published in the local newspaper. A communication was also made with the office of Employment Exchange on 5/8/2012. In response to the advertisement, number of candidates applied for the posts. Interviews were conducted. The School committee ultimately vide Resolution dtd. 21/8/2012 decided to appoint the petitioner as "Shikshan Sevak " for three years. Accordingly, appointment order dtd. 21/8/2012 was issued. Headmaster of respondent No.7-School submitted proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of "Shikshan Sevak ". The application was not processed in time, therefore, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing No.6970 of 2015 vide order dtd. 28/7/2015, directions were given by this Court for deciding the proposal for approval expeditiously. Respondent No.5 thereafter granted an approval for appointment of the petitioner on unaided post. The petitioner in view of this approval again filed a writ petition in this Court bearing No.5888 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd. 26/7/2016 issued directions to respondent No.5 to decide the proposal submitted by the Headmaster of respondent No.7-School. Accordingly, respondent No.5 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on aided post.

(3.) Headmaster of respondent No.7 - School thereafter submitted a proposal for allotting Shalarth-ID to the petitioner. This proposal was not processed in time. In the meantime, one Akash Tambe made a complaint to respondent No.2 dtd. 30/5/2019 alleging that appointment of the petitioner was not legal inasmuch as on the date of the appointment of the petitioner, there was backlog and without filling the backlog, the appointment of the petitioner was made giving go bye to the mandate of law. Pursuant to this complaint, a show cause notice dtd. 20/8/2019 was issued by respondent No.4. After hearing the petitioner and the management, respondent No.4, as stated above, vide order dtd. 5/11/2019 cancelled the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner made on the post of "Shikshan Sevak ". Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court.