1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3594 OF 2009 Hindi Prachar Mandal & Anr. ... ... Petitioners. Versus The District Vocational Education & Training Officer and Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. A. A. Garge for the Petitioners. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned letters dated 7th June, 2008 and 19th June, 2008 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 whereby the proposal forwarded by the petitioner Mandal for grant of approval to petitioner No.2 as Medical Laboratory Technician Course of respondent No. 2 came to be rejected in view of Government Resolution dated 10th April, 1991. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset has brought to the notice of this Court clause 5 of the said Government Resolution which 2 contemplates that so far as the minority institutions are concerned the provisions of the said Government Resolution shall not apply. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the impugned communications which are primarily based on the provisions of the Government Resolution which are not applicable to the minority institutions and petitioner No.1 being a minority institution, the impugned communications are devoid of substance and cannot be sustainable in law and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute factual and legal aspect of the matter. However, he has submitted that since petitioner No.2 was serving in the College run by minority institution which is admitted to the grant-in-aid and therefore the appointment made, though by the minority institution, must be in accordance with the rules applicable to such appointment. The petitioner institution cannot claim exception to these general rules. 5. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the proposal submitted by petitioner No.1 of petitioner No.2 for grant of approval came to be rejected by the respondents vide impugned communications primarily in view of the Government Resolution dated 10th April, 1991. It is 3 also not in dispute that as per paragraph 5 of the said Government Resolution the provisions thereof are not applicable to the minority institutions. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.1 is a minority institution. Since the rejection of the proposal is based on the Government Resolution which is not applicable to the minority institutions, therefore, the action of the respondents, in our view cannot be sustained in law. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned communications dated 7th June, 2008 and 19th June, 2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The issue of consideration of approval is remitted back to respondent No.2 – The Deputy Director of Education, who is directed to reconsider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard and take a decision as early as possible and in any case not beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by following principles of natural justice. 8. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)