20 April 2010
Supreme Court
Download

KU.KUNDA MOTIRAM BODALKAR Vs SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHA .

Case number: C.A. No.-003544-003545 / 2010
Diary number: 20072 / 2008
Advocates: ANAGHA S. DESAI Vs PROMILA


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3544-3545 OF  2010

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.28100-28101/2008)

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

-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

-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.