Safiya Malik

A division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, has upheld the constitutional rights of minority educational institutions in teacher appointments. The court set aside an administrative order that had rejected an appointment approval, ruling that the refusal—based on a general ban on recruitment due to surplus teachers—failed to consider the institution’s protected autonomy under the law.

The dispute stems from the refusal of the Education Officer of the Solapur Zilla Parishad to approve the appointment of a Shikshan Sevak in a minority educational institution. The petitioner, a qualified educator, was selected following a public recruitment process initiated by the institution. The vacancy arose due to the retirement of a former teacher, and the position was duly advertised.

The institution, a registered public trust managing a school receiving 100% financial aid from the State of Maharashtra, proceeded with the selection process in accordance with established norms. The petitioner, having completed HSC in 2004, D.Ed. in 2008, and an MS-CIT certification, was found to be duly qualified for the role. Upon selection, the petitioner was formally appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak on June 17, 2013.

Following the appointment, the institution submitted a proposal on May 17, 2017, to the Education Officer, seeking approval for the petitioner’s appointment. This proposal was initially forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education to the Director of Education, who, in turn, submitted it to the Principal Secretary of the Education and Sports Department of the State of Maharashtra. However, on November 3, 2015, the Education and Sports Department informed the Education Officer of the government’s rejection of the proposal. The institution, nevertheless, resubmitted the proposal, but it was ultimately rejected by the Education Officer through an order dated May 26, 2017.

The primary reason cited for rejection was that surplus teachers remained available for absorption and, as per the government resolution dated May 2, 2012, no new appointments could be approved until all surplus teachers were absorbed into the system. The petitioner and the institution challenged this decision, contending that the restriction did not apply to minority institutions, which retain constitutional autonomy in staffing matters.

The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and education department officials, defended the rejection, arguing that the absorption of surplus teachers was a critical administrative priority. They stated that a blanket hiring restriction was necessary to prevent the duplication of state-funded salaries and to maintain systemic efficiency.

The court examined the case with reference to relevant constitutional provisions, statutory regulations, and judicial precedents. It acknowledged that minority educational institutions possess special protections concerning staff recruitment. The ruling cited Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), which explicitly excludes minority institutions from the general restrictions imposed on the hiring process.

The court stated: "The appointment of teachers in a minority institution falls within the exclusive domain of such institutions, subject only to basic qualification requirements prescribed by the state."

The Court further observed that the government’s hiring restrictions must be interpreted in light of constitutional provisions safeguarding the autonomy of minority educational institutions. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sindhi Education Society & Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein it was held that "Independence in the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution."

Additionally, the court examined the precedent set in St. Francis De Sales Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that reservation policies and hiring bans could not be enforced upon minority institutions in a manner that infringes upon their constitutional rights.

The Court noted: "The impugned order does not address the minority status of the institution nor does it consider the applicable statutory exemption. The refusal to approve the petitioner’s appointment based solely on the hiring ban and surplus teacher absorption policy is not legally sustainable."

The court further observed that the institution had, in fact, absorbed surplus teachers in the past, as evidenced by documentation submitted in court. The court noted that the government’s rejection order failed to account for this fact and disregarded the management’s prerogative to fill sanctioned vacancies in accordance with its needs.

After examining the matter in depth, the court set aside the rejection order dated May 26, 2017. The court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal for appointment approval without applying the surplus teacher absorption policy or the hiring ban.

"The respondent authority shall reassess the petitioner’s appointment proposal afresh and shall not reject the same on the ground of the hiring ban or surplus teacher absorption policy."

The court further instructed the Education Officer to complete the reconsideration process within four weeks. The writ petition was thus partly allowed and no costs were awarded.

Case Title: Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: WP-12388-2022
Bench: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

[Read/Download order]