Facts: Petitioner No. 2, an educational society, appointed Petitioner No. 1 as the Headmaster of a private school following the retirement of the previous incumbent. The society submitted a proposal for approval of this appointment to the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad. However, the Education Officer refused approval via an order dated 13th August 2018. The refusal was primarily based on the grounds of roster point verification and the alleged failure of the society to submit necessary documents. The school in question had only two sanctioned posts for the category of Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster. The State contended that one of these two posts must be reserved by rotation for various reserved categories (SC, ST, VJ, NT, SBC) as per certain Government Resolutions and Circulars issued in 2017.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction via a Writ Petition, challenging the legality of the Education Officer's order refusing the appointment approval.
Issue: Whether executive directions contained in Government Resolutions and Circulars regarding roster points can prevail over the statutory provisions of the MEPS Rules, and whether reservation is applicable when there are only two sanctioned posts for Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster.
Holding: No, the executive instructions cannot prevail over statutory rules, and reservation is not applicable in this specific case. The court set aside the Education Officer's order and directed the grant of approval for Petitioner No. 1's appointment.
Reasoning: The Court relied on Rule 9(10) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, which mandates a 33% reservation for specific categories from the total number of posts of Heads and Assistant Heads. In the present case, there were only two such posts. The Court observed that reserving one out of two posts would result in 50% reservation, which exceeds the statutory limit of 33%. The Court held that statutory rules framed under Section 16 of the MEPS Act prevail over executive instructions or Government Resolutions. Since the 33% threshold could not be met mathematically with only two posts without exceeding the limit, reservation was held to be inapplicable. Consequently, there was no necessity to verify the roster, and the Education Officer's refusal based on roster points was legally unsustainable.