Approval of Minority School Nominated Post Requires Proposal by a Valid and Dispute-Free Management

The Petitioner was appointed as a Head Master in Respondent No. 5 School, which is a minority institution

Under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act, the Deputy Director of Education had notified the post of Head Master as a "nominated post," allowing the Management to appoint a candidate of their choice without following standard recruitment rules

A dispute existed between rival groups claiming control of the School Management

One group forwarded the Petitioner’s name for approval to the Administrative Officer, who granted it subject to the Deputy Director’s final clearance

However, on July 10, 2024, the Deputy Director rejected the proposal due to the ongoing Management dispute, leading the Administrative Officer to cancel the Petitioner’s approval on July 15, 2024

The Petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that Management tussles should not affect individual staff approvals

1. Whether a dispute within the Management of a minority institution is a valid ground for the Deputy Director of Education to reject the approval of a person nominated to a post under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act

2. Whether the Petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the rejection of a proposal that must legally be initiated and pursued by a valid Management

The Court applied Sections 2(12), 2(13), and 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ("MEPS Act")

Section 3(2) provides a special exemption for minority schools, allowing them to notify the Head of the school and three other employees whose recruitment is exempted from general Act provisions

Section 2(12) defines "Management" as the person or body administering the school, and the Court interpreted this to mean a valid, legal body acting through resolutions

The Court distinguished Navnath Narsing Gore v. State of Maharashtra, noting that while routine approvals may proceed despite Management disputes, "nominated" posts under Section 3(2) depend entirely on the prerogative and valid proposal of the Management

The Court reasoned that Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act grants a specific "prerogative" to minority institutions to bypass standard rules for select posts; consequently, the role of the "Management" is crucial and dispositive

Unlike routine staff appointments where the Management’s role is minimal, a Section 3(2) appointment is a "choice" that must be exercised by a legally valid and unanimous (or majority) body of persons

Since the Management group that proposed the Petitioner failed to prove they were the "legal and valid persons" in charge during the dispute, the Deputy Director was justified in rejecting the proposal

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Management itself did not challenge the Deputy Director's rejection, suggesting they accepted the decision

The Court also found the procedure adopted—seeking approval from the Education Officer before the Deputy Director—to be "foreign to the established procedure of law"

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Deputy Director’s rejection was in consonance with the law given the lack of a clear, valid Management to exercise the Section 3(2) prerogative. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly