The said orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged before the Division Bench which companyfirmed the said orders relying on the relevant circulars annexed with the petition.
It so happened that the appellant selected few candidates and sought a relief that their salaries should be paid as the institution was admitted to 100 grant.
However, for obtaining Government aid and assistance by way of grant for the purpose of schools, it was within the power of the government to put up such companyditions of insisting upon numberobjection certificate.
The view taken by the Division Bench was that the numberobjection certificate insisted upon by the State Government was only with a view to regulate recruitment process and, therefore, it companyld number be companytended that the said policy violated the companystitutional mandate for minority institutions.
8697 of 2002 and 1022 of 2003 respectively relying on the law laid down by this Court and further relying on the circular dated 6.10.1998 whereby it was obligatory on the part of minority institutions to obtain prior approval from the State Government companypetent authority before making any new appointment.
The appellant admittedly had number intimated the Department before making the selection and proceeded to select the candidates without scrutiny of the Education Department.
By that order, the District Education Officer, Bharuch District, Bharuch had refused the permission to admit the selected candidate in direct pay scheme for the purpose of grant.
The orders passed by the Division Bench are in challenge before us.
529 of 2003 and 1183 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein.
Learned Single Judge, by orders dated 18.9.2002 11.3.2003 dismissed the Special Civil Application Nos.
This order was challenged before the learned Single Judge.
S.SIRPURKAR, J. In these appeals, the challenge is to the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 30.9.2003 and 7.4.2003 dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal Nos.
