NOTHING PREVENTED THE AUTHORITY FROM CANCELLING OR REVOKING THE PERMISSION TO FILL IN THE POST: Bombay High Court
INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 10 March 2023. In the case of ARUN THUTE LOKVIKAS PRATISTHAN HINGANGHAT THR. PRESIDENT SMT. USHAKIRAN A. THUTE AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.1648/2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI the court addressed the issue of the arbitrary rejection of an appointment by the Deputy Director of Education. The case revolved around the appointment of a peon in a school managed by an institution. The rejection was based on the grounds that the appointment was made during a period when there was a ban on recruitment to Class-C and Class-D posts. The court analysed the circumstances and the applicable laws to arrive at a decision.
FACTS
The petitioners, comprising the institution managing the school and the selected candidate for the peon position, sought permission to fill the vacant post. The Deputy Director of Education granted permission to fill the post, and the institution proceeded with the recruitment process. A suitable candidate was selected, and the appointment order was issued. However, later on, the approval for the appointment was rejected by the Deputy Director, citing the ban on recruitment during that period.
THE JUDGMENT
The court examined the grounds of rejection and considered the arguments put forth by both parties. The petitioners contended that the appointment was made after following due procedure, obtaining the necessary permission, and fulfilling all requirements. They highlighted that the appointment was for a clear and permanent vacancy and that the selected candidate belonged to the Other Backward Category.
The Deputy Director, on the other hand, argued that the institution should have stopped the recruitment process even after receiving permission, as the responsibility lay with them. They also mentioned that the previous Deputy Director granted permission without verifying the availability of surplus employees.
The court noted that the rejection of the appointment approval was solely based on the fact that it was made during the period of the recruitment ban. The Deputy Director referred to a government resolution that imposed the ban and subsequent extensions. However, the court found that the recruitment process had already commenced before the imposition of the ban, as evidenced by the permission granted prior to the ban.
The court drew parallels to a similar case decided by a Coordinate Bench and a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the precedent case, the court held that the ban on recruitment would not apply if the process was already initiated by the management. The Apex Court ruled that the ban should not negate the approval already given for filling grant-in-aid posts.
CONCLUSION
After considering the submissions and the applicable legal precedents, the court found the rejection of the appointment approval to be arbitrary. It emphasized that the petitioner had been appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy with permission granted before the ban was imposed. The court noted that the authorities could have cancelled or revoked the permission if necessary. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the Deputy Director to grant approval for the appointment, along with the release of the petitioner’s salary from the date of joining.
This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to due process and ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary. It serves as a reminder that the imposition of bans on recruitment should not disregard the rights and legitimate expectations of individuals and institutions. The judgment provides clarity on the applicability of bans and the protection of approvals granted before their imposition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW