1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 13.07.2011/15.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 164/2009 and the order dated 24.02.2012 passed in Review Application No. 13/2011 whereby the said applications were rejected, as also the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the District Education Officer, disapproving the proposal for appointment of the petitioner.
2. The facts in brief are that pursuant to the 'No objection Certificate' dated 29.09.2008 issued by respondent no. 1 for the post of Assistant Teacher in the respondent no. 3 school, respondent no. 2 and 3 published an advertisement for the said post. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the interview on 25.06.2009 and he was duly selected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner was given the appointment order dated 04.08.2009 and the same was sent for approval of respondent no. 1. However, respondent no. 1 vide order dated 27.06.2009 disapproved the proposal sent by respondent no. 3 school for appointment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Application No. 154/2009 before the Tribunal, which came to be rejected vide order dated 13.07.2011/15.07.2011. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Review Application No. 13/2011, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 24.02.2012. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. The respondent no. 3 is an aided educational institution. Under the Government guidelines and the practice of the department, the appointment of an employee in an aided educational institution cannot be brought into effect without obtaining prior approval from respondent no. 1 for the purpose of grant. The procedure and the guidelines provide that once the process of selection is over the school management is required to submit the proposal with all the necessary documents to respondent no. 1 for his approval. In the present case, respondent no. 1 had declined the approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the auditor of the Trust had committed certain illegalities in the process of selection and that the management had invited the applications at the address of the management instead of school, which is in violation of the G.S.E. Board's Circular dated 09.10.1993 and that the Head Master of the respondent school though he was on duty was not intimated to sit in the selection committee as a member and the selection of the petitioner took place in the absence of the Head Master. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the statutory requirement, the Tribunal was completely justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived by the Tribunal and hence I do not find any reasons to disturb the same.
4. Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top