HC protects job of teacher who sought Diploma from other state

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Education Officer of Akola Zilla Parishad refusing to grant approval to appointment of a teacher on the ground that he was not qualified as per the Maharashtra Government notification.
The aggrieved teacher, Govind Mahale, had filed a petition in the High Court seeking a declaration that the order dated October 8, 1996, passed by the Education Officer, refusing approval to his appointment was bad in law and should be struck down.
He also sought consequential relief of protecting his employment. The High Court, on March 31, 1998, while issuing notice in the matter, had granted the petitioner interim relief. Hence, the petitioner even today continues in service.

Petitioner's Counsel, P B Patil, relied upon a Government Resolution of May 31, 1993, and also on a Division Bench Judgement of the High Court to prove that he was qualified for the appointment.
He urged that the petitioner had joined the course for Diploma in Teaching conducted by Sagar University in Madhya Pradesh on July 16, 1991, and completed it on April 30, 1993, much prior to issuance of the said Government Resolution.
It was pleaded that the Diploma in Education procured by him must be treated as equivalent to said Diploma granted by any Institute in the State of Maharashtra.

The lawyer contended that the impugned order refusing to grant approval to the petitioner was unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.

The lawyer also invited the attention of the Court to an order dated July 22, 2009, passed in a writ petition to urge that in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court had called upon the competent authority to take decision upon the question of equivalence in relation to such course conducted by the Institutes outside the State of Maharashtra.
The Court was informed that such a decision had already been taken on December 16, 2010.
The lawyer contended that the Government Resolution had been issued after the petitioner joined his services and hence the employment of the petitioner is protected in the light of earlier decision and earlier adjudication.