1 wp2722-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2722 OF 2010 Smt. Reena Anant Bari & Another ..Petitioners. Versus Aryan Education Society ..Respondent. Mr.M.P. Vashi i/by M/s.M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioners. Mr.S.V. Gavand for respondent No.1. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : B.H. Marlapalle, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 26th October 2010. P.C. : We have heard Mr.Vashi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Gavand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Mrs.Thakur, the learned AGP appears for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Shri Ashok Ramchandra Bhagwat, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane has filed affidavit-in-reply and Shri Shashikant Dalvi, Joint Honorary Secretary of the respondent No.1 has also filed affidavit-in-reply so as to oppose this petition. 2 wp2722-10 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking orders so as to quash and set aside the letter dated 16th October 2009 and the order dated 15th February 2010 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane and further directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the petitioners’ to resume their duties as shikshan sevaks at the M.N. Dandekar High School, Palghar run by the Aryan Education Society, Mumbai. 3. The petitioners had approached this Court in the earlier round in Writ Petition No.9876 of 2009, contending that they were issued the letters of appointment on 16th October 2009 but subsequently by another communication dated 3rd November 2009, they were informed that it would not be possible to allow them to join as shikshan sevaks and, therefore, they had sought directions. This Court directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad to go through the entire record of selection and examine whether the selection process was in accordance with law. The Education Officer by his order dated 15th February 2010 has held that the selection process undertaken by the management was partly legal and, therefore, he recommended to undertake selection process afresh. The said order has been passed after hearing all the parties concerned and taking into consideration the record placed by the management. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Education Officer on 15th February 2010 3 wp2722-10 and it is their prayer that their selection as shikshan sevak must be declared as legal and consequently they ought to be allowed to join as such. 4. As directed by us, the entire record of selection process as well as the minutes book register have been placed before us by the management and we have perused the same. Though in the selection process which was undertaken on behalf of the management, there does not seem to be anything to doubt the legality of the selection process, the petitioner No.1 who is B.Sc., B.Ed. is in the merit list and so is the case of petitioner No.2, who is B.A., B.Ed. However, the petitioner No.1 is B.Sc. in Chemistry, the advertisement which was released by the management on or about 23rd July 2009 inviting applications for the post of shikshan sevak for the High School at Palghar indicated that there was a vacancy of a teacher in Mathematics and Physics. Out of the three posts of shikshan sevak, the second post was for a teacher with Marathi / Geography and it was specifically stated that preference will be given to a teacher who has passed in Sanskrit subject and the third vacancy was for primary section, with which we are not concerned. Whether the petitioners would meet the requirements or not is an issue which the Education Officer will have to decide in the fresh selection process. At the same time, the roaster of reservation has also not been indicated even before the Education Officer, more so when the schools are aided by the State Government. What is most shocking is the alleged payment of consideration / donation for being appointed as shikshan sevak. The meeting 4 wp2722-10 of the managing committee held on 10th October 2009 claims to have elaborately dealt with the issue of these selections and the minutes recorded indicate that Shri Bhoir and Shri Mukesh Patel proceeded with the selection process unauthorizedly. This may not be very significant but at the same time the minutes indicate the statement made by Shri Bhoir and Shri Mukesh Patel that appointments were issued to only such candidates, who agreed to pay, may be by way of donation, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. Mr.Vashi, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place before us a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 10th October 2009, which he claims was also placed before the Education officer. These minutes have been purportedly signed by Shri Bhoir and Shri Mukesh Patel and they do not tally with the original minutes, as recorded in the minutes book. On the face of the record that is placed before us, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Education Officer that the selection process must start afresh and undoubtedly if the petitioners participate in this fresh process, they ought to be given preference as they have been already working under respondent No.1 – Society on part-time basis. The learned counsel for the management does not dispute the same preposition. 6. We, therefore, do not find any case made out to cause interference with the impugned order dated 15th February 2010 passed by the Education Officer. 5 wp2722-10 We direct that a fresh selection process be undertaken within four weeks from today, and with the first step of issuing an advertisement and the selection process be completed by 31st December 2010. We also direct the management that it shall constitute a selection committee as contemplated under the MEPS Rules before the selection tests commence and the Headmaster of the concerned School must be one of the member of this committee. We also direct that all things being equal, the petitioners must be given preference. It appears that during the last selection process, over-age was not treated as a bar and the same things will be considered in the like manner in the fresh selection process as well, for the petitioners. 7. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle, J.)