- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 2154 OF 2009 The National Education & Social Trust ..Petitioners Vs. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Jamdar, for Respondent No.1. Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr. A. N. Mulla i/b S. G. Kudle, for Respondent No.3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.1, respondent No.3 and the learned AGP for respondent No.2. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner being a Minority Educational Institution & a Social Trust, has an absolute right to appoint head of the institution as per the provisions of Art. 30 of the - 2 - Constitution. It is contended that vide order dated 12th September 2008 the petitioner Trust has appointed Mr. Patel as Head Master of the school and forwarded his proposal to respondent No.1 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur for grant of approval. The Educational Officer sent two communications dated 18th September 2008. By one communication the petitioners were informed that the proposal sent by them for grant of approval in respect of Mr. Patel was not sent by the Secretary of the Trust and therefore, directed them to rectify this deficiency and send the proper proposal. By another communication, the Education Officer (Primary) informed the petitioners that respondent No.3 has been appointed as an in-charge Head Master and was given financial and administrative powers. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that grievance of the petitioners is two fold. One is in respect of communication dated 18th September 2008 issued by the Education Officer (Primary), whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as an in-charge Head Master; and second is the refusal to the grant of approval to the proposal submitted by the petitioners of Mr. Patel, in spite of rectification of the deficiency, pointed out by the Education Officer. Hence, the present petition for necessary direction. - 3 - 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Education Officer (Primary) does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter. However, he has submitted that the appointment of respondent No.3 as an in-charge Head Master, who was given financial and administrative powers was by way of a stop gap arrangement, so that salary bills of teaching and non- teaching staff of the school should be cleared. It is further contended that if the petitioner Trust claims that all the deficiencies in the proposal of Mr. Patel are rectified and cleared, in that event the proposal of Mr. Patel as an in-charge Head Master will be considered on its own merit in accordance with law and the procedure applicable in this regard, and the decision will be taken within a period of 4 weeks from today by following the principles of natural justice. 3. The counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that Mr. Patel is not ready and willing to be the Head of the Institution/School, however, the petitioners are forcing him to be so though Mr. Patel himself is not ready to be the Head Master of the school. 4. Be that as it may, it is for the Education Officer (Primary) to consider the proposal dated 12th September 2008 forwarded by the petitioner Trust on its own merit and in accordance with law and take a - 4 - decision by following the principles of natural justice and therefore, it will not be appropriate for us at this stage to observe anything in one way or the other on the merits of the matter. In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition, keeping the issue open and expect the Education Officer (Primary) to proceed accordingly. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.