Ku.Kunda Motiram Bodalkar vs Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha & Ors
- SCC(2010) 6 SCC 712
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a school authority's appointment of a headmistress is made on the basis of an advertisement, no other eligible candidate is available within the school staff, the appointment is later approved by the competent authority, and the only irregularity is the absence of prior permission before the appointment was made, the appointment shall not be struck down as illegal by a court merely on the ground of lack of prior permission; the subsequent approval by the competent authority cures the defect of prior permission.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
KU. KUNDA MOTIRAM BODALKAR Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Heard counsel for the appellant and the contesting
respondent no.4. Also heard counsel representing the
State of Maharashtra. Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.6 is supporting the claim of the appellant.
The dispute in this case relates to the
appointment of the Headmistress of Sant Shivram Maharaj
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhandara, which is a recognized -2-
secondary school run by Swami Vivekanand Shikshan
Sanstha, respondent no.1. The appellant was appointed as
Headmistress of the school by respondent No.6 in the year
2004. Admittedly, prior permission for her appointment
was not obtained from the competent authority and that
alone is the reason for which the High Court found the
appointment illegal and struck it down.
It is undeniable that the appointment of the
appellant as the Headmistress was made on the basis of an
advertisement. It is also clear that at that time no
other teacher in the school was eligible to be appointed
as Headmistress. It is also not denied that later on the
appellant's appointment was approved by the competent
authority. We were also told that since her appointment
the appellant is working as the Headmistress in the
school.
Learned counsel appearing for the State admitted
that apart from the fact that there was no prior
permission for the appointment, there is no other
irregularity in the appellant's appointment as
Headmistress.
In those facts, we are of the view that the High
court was in error in interfering in the matter and
setting aside the appellant's appointment. -3-
We, accordingly, set aside the High Court order
and confirm the appellant's appointment to the post of
Headmistress.
The appeals stand allowed accordingly.
.....................J (AFTAB ALAM)
.....................J (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
New Delhi;
April 20, 2010.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free