Teacher – Appointment in Aided School – No Prior Recruitment Permission
Judgment dated 21.10.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.112 of 2025 of Smt.. Manthana Ramdas thakur and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
The petitioner contends that although the petitioner belongs to the OBC category, she was possessing the necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. She has applied as an open category candidate for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak in pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by petitioner no. 2 in the local newspaper dated 29 May, 2017. It is the petitioner’s case that the said advertisement was issued as mandated by law, however, copy of only one newspaper cutting of the advertisement issued in “Daily Om Samachar” is annexed. Whether the said newspaper was a newspaper of wide circulation, cannot be ascertained in the said petition, except for a fact that the petitioner to that effect obtained a certificate from the owners of the said newspaper that the said newspaper has wide circulation. This itself reflects something quite unusual.
There was transfer of the school to the petitioner no.2 in May 2011.
On 17 August, 2022, respondent no. 2 issued a letter to the Principal of petitioner no. 2-school to submit the proposal as per the Government Resolution dated 10 June, 2022, which was to be submitted by 24 August, 2022. The said Government Resolution set out the norms for approval to the appointments made by the non-minority Educational Institutions, prior to 23 June, 2017. On 23 August, 2022, the Principal of petitioner no. 2 submitted the proposal to respondent no. 2. On 20 September, 2022, respondent no. 2 rejected the proposal on the ground of deficiencies in the proposal. According to the petitioners, by letter dated 20 September, 2022, the Principal submitted information and documents to cure the deficiencies. The modified proposal was considered by respondent no. 2 and by an order dated 2 December, 2022, the same was rejected on the ground of deficiencies, which were not cured.
Thus, the position in law is very clear which in the petitioner’s case could not have been compromised. The Management was required to adhere to the mandate of Section 5 of the MEPS Act and the Rules (supra), of obtaining prior approval before issuance of an advertisement and making recruitment to fill up vacancies to the post of a teacher. In the present case, we find that there is no justification as to why such mandate was not adhered. The provisions of Section 5 of the MEPS Act read with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules stand breached by the Management in totality. There is also no explanation whatsoever as to why there was a gross delay of almost more than five years in submitting the proposal. This was also the ground considered by the Division Bench in Prakash Daulat Patil (supra), wherein the action on the part of the Education authorities in accepting such belated proposal, contrary to the mandate of law, was not accepted.
it is clear case where the mandate of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, as also the mandate of Rules 8 and 9 of the MEPS Rules, has not been followed by the petitioner and, in this view of the matter, once the provisions of law themselves have been breached, the petitioner would not become entitled to any relief, that too in respect of an aided post.
In the aforesaid circumstances, respondent no. 2, has strictly adhered to the provisions of law. If the petitioner’s case is to be accepted, it would amount to the Court condoning the requirement of law as set out hereinabove. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition.
We find that, in making any appointment, the mandate of Section 5 was required to be followed by petitioner No.2 and prior NOC/approval was required to be obtained from the designated authority, as contemplated under Section 5. The same was not obtained.
