KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri Charde the learned A.G.P., waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Dubey, the learned Advocate, waives services for respondent No.3. By consent, rule is called out and heard.

(2.) On 1st July, 1986, the petitioner was appointed as Head of respondent No.3 School for deaf and dumb students, which receives grants from the State Government. The petitioner's appointment as Head of the said School has been approved by respondent No.2, who is a Competent Authority to grant such approval. On 22nd February, 1999, respondent No.3 issued an order of suspension to the petitioner without obtaining the previous permission from respondent No.2. It is this order of suspension, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Both the sides agree that the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rule, 1981 are applicable to the case of the petitioner. Consequently, Rule 35 would govern the conditions of suspension. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 35 requires prior approval of the appropriate authority mentioned in Rule 33. Thus before the order of suspension is made against the employee, prior approval should have been obtained by respondent No.3. from the Competent Authority, that is respondent No.2. The consequences of not obtaining such prior approval have been dealt with in detail by several judgments starting from Vinmala v National Education Society, Khamgaon,1982 MhLJ 403. This judgment clearly lays down that the consequence of not obtaining the prior approval would mean that the suspension order is void and ineffective. Both the sides respectfully agree with the observation and we reiterate the same.