JUDGMENT
V.K. Tahilramani, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Counsel for the respective respondents.
2. The present writ petition is directed
against the order dated 01.05.2001 terminating the
services of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2001.
The said order was issued by the present respondent no. 3
i.e. Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
(for short the Mandal). The present writ petition
also challenges the advertisement dated 10.06.2001
inviting applications for the post of Hostel
Superintendent.
3. The Government of Maharashtra took a policy
decision to establish Girls Hostels in every taluka in
the State in the memory of the Ex-Prime Minister of
India Smt. Indira Gandhi. The said Priyadarshini Girls
Hostels were to run on the lines of the Hostels for
depressed classes run by the Social Welfare Department.
The Government of Maharashtra framed the rules for
management of such Priyadarshini Girls Hostels, which
were applicable to the voluntary organisations running
such Hostels. The Respondent No. 3 – Mandal is one such
organisation running a Priyadarshini Girls Hostel at
Kannad.
4. The Respondent No. 3 – Mandal had published
an advertisement inviting applications for the post of
Hostel Superintendent in the Priyadarshini Girls Hostel
at Kannad. Several candidates including the petitioner
had applied for the said post. The petitioner came to
be selected and appointed as Hostel Superintendent with
effect from 16.11.1998 by the Respondent No. 3. However,
as the premises for the Girls Hostel were not handed
over by the Government to the Respondent No. 3, the
Hostel could not function for about 4/5 months.
Thereafter the premises came to be handed over by the
Government to the Respondent No. 3 Mandal. The President
of the Respondent No. 3 – Mandal informed the petitioner
by letter dated 29.11.2000 to start functioning as
Superintendent of the Girls Hostel with effect from
01.12.2000. However, it was made clear in the said
letter that her appointment shall be regularised, as per
the rules, immediately after grant of approval by the
Respondent No. 2 – Joint Director (Higher Education),
Aurangabad. The Respondent No. 3 Mandal had forwarded
the proposal for the purpose of approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as Hostel Superintendent
to the Joint Director (Higher Education), Aurangabad, on
01.12.2000. The approval to her appointment as Hostel
Superintendent was awaited. Thereafter, the Respondent
No. 3 – Mandal, by letter dated 01.05.2001, informed the
petitioner that though the proposal for grant of
approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Hostel
Superintendent was sent to the Joint Director (Higher
Education), Aurangabad, no approval, as yet received.
It is further stated in the said letter that the
petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications,
hence, the petitioner was directed not to work as Hostel
Superintendent from the new academic year commencing
from June 2001.
5. The petitioner sent two representations to
the Joint Director dated 01.06.2001 and 18.06.2001
requesting him to grant approval to the appointment of
the petitioner as Hostel Superintendent. In the
meanwhile, the Respondent No. 3 – Mandal on 10.06.2001,
had published an advertisement inviting applications for
the post of Hostel Superintendent. In the said
advertisement, the requisite qualification for Hostel
Superintendent was mentioned as Graduation with B.Ed.
As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged the
termination of her services on the ground that she did
not possess the requisite qualification as well as the
advertisement issued by the Respondent No. 3 for filling
in the post of Hostel Superintendent. It is contended
on behalf of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3
Mandal has falsely prescribed the qualification of B.Ed.
for the post of Hostel Superintendent. It is stated on
behalf of the petitioner that the requisite
qualification for the post of Hostel Superintendent as
per Rule 23(a) is Graduation or SSC passed or an
experienced woman who shall permanently reside in the
said Hostel. It is further stated that the petitioner
had the requisite qualifications for being appointed as
a Hostel Superintendent and hence the Respondent No. 3
has wrongly removed her from the post of Hostel
Superintendent. It was stated that the petitioner
possessed the requisite qualifications, hence her
removal on the ground that she did not possess the
requisite qualification is without any substance or
foundation. There is no rule or regulation which
requires that the candidate for the post of Hostel
Superintendent must possess B.Ed. qualification. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no
misconduct was alleged on the part of the petitioner nor
any show cause notice was given to her before
terminating her services and hence, there was no ground,
much less a justifiable reason, for terminating her
services.
6. It is further stated that the Priyadarshini
Girls Hostel was receiving 100% salary grants as well
as building grants and was under the control of the
Government and the Rules and Regulations for appointment
of Hostel Superintendent, Payment of Grants, etc. are
framed by the Government. It is contended that thus the
Government exercises deep and pervasive control over the
Hostel despite the fact that the Hostel is run by a
voluntary organisation. This voluntary organisation was
selected by the Government of Maharashtra to run the
Priyadarshini Girls Hostel. In view of the above, the
Respondent No. 3 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of
this Court.
7. A return has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent No. 2 – Joint Director (Higher Education),
Aurangabad. In the said return it is categorically
stated that the Government Resolution dated 30.06.1999
is applicable to the post claimed by the petitioner.
Rule 26 (A) of the said Resolution prescribes that the
necessary qualification required for holding the post of
Hostel Superintendent is Graduation or SSC passed or an
experienced woman who shall permanently reside in the
said Hostel.
8. Looking to this admitted position, it is
clear that the petitioner holds the requisite
qualification for the post of Hostel Superintendent in
Priyadarshini Girls Hostel run by the Respondent No. 3
Mandal. The petitioner is M.A. and, therefore, it
cannot be said that she is not possessing the requisite
qualification for being appointed to the post of Hostel
Superintendent in Priyadarshini Girls Hostel. In this
view of the matter, removal of the petitioner from
service on the ground that she did not hold the
requisite qualification for the post of Hostel
Superintendent is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the
order of termination dated 01.05.2001 deserves to be
quashed and set aside so also the advertisement issued
by the Respondent No. 3 – Mandal dated 10.06.2001 for the
post of Hostel Superintendent stating that the requisite
qualification is B.Ed. is also erroneous and
consequently, the said advertisement will also have to
be quashed.
9. It may be stated that at the time of
admission, this Court by order dated 07.11.2001 had
granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C)
which reads as under:
(C) To grant interim stay to the operation,
execution and implementation of the
order/letter dated 01.05.2001 directing the
petitioner not to work as Hostel
Superintendent issued by the President of
the respondent no. 3 – Mandal (Exh.”K”),
pending hearing and final disposal of this
petition.
Thereafter on 8th July 2002, Rule was
granted and Rule on stay was made returnable after three
months and in the mean time, ad interim order was
continued. In view of these orders, the petitioner is
continued on the post of Hostel Superintendent.
10. In the result, in view of the fact that the
petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, the
order of her termination and the advertisement dated
10.06.2001 are set aside. Thus, we make the Rule
absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses (A) and (B), which
read as under:
(A) To quash the impugned letter/order dated
01.05.2001 directing the petitioner not to
work as Hostel Superintendent of
Priyadarshini Girls Hostel issued by the
President of the respondent no. 3 – Mandal
(Exh-“K”) by issuing a writ of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, as the case may be.
(B) To quash the impugned advertisement dated
10.06.2001 published by the Respondent No. 3
(Exh-“N”) in daily “Sakal” inviting
applications for the post of Hostel
Superintendent in Priyadarshini Girls
Hostel published by the respondent no. 3
Mandal by issuing a writ of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or
directions, as the case may be.
11. No order as to costs.