SURESH EKNATH KUDALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dtd. 5/11/2019 passed by respondent No.4 Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur, whereby respondent No.4 cancelled the individual approval granted by respondent No.5-Education Officer to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled caste category. There was a vacancy of Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.7-School. The management of respondent No.6 therefore proposed to fill in that vacancy. Advertisement dtd. 19/6/2015 was published. After following due procedure the petitioner was appointed by order dtd. 6/7/2015 as Shikshan Sevak for a period of 3 years from 6/7/2015 to 5/7/2018. The Headmaster of respondent No.7 submitted a proposal on 6/7/2015 to respondent No.5-Education Officer for granting approval to the appointment. Respondent No.5 vide order dtd. 1/9/2016 refused to accord approval to the individual appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed Writ Petition No. 14194/2016 in this Court. This Court on 23/3/2017 allowed the Writ Petition and directed respondent No.5 Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. On 7/3/2019 respondent No.5 Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.6 and 7 on 10/8/2021 submitted a proposal for allotment of Shalarth ID to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, one Mr. Akash Tambe made a complaint to respondent No.2 and raised general objection to the order granting approval to the appointment. The complaint was forwarded to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and called their explanation. Respondent No.4 vide order dtd. 5/11/2019 passed the impugned order and thereby cancelled the individual approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court against this order.

(3.) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a reply and opposed the petition. According to the respondents appointment of the petitioner was not according to the procedure. In the Academic Year 2015-2016, total 23 posts of Assistant Teachers were sanctioned by Respondent No.7 Secondary School, whereas 34 teachers were working at the said school. There was no vacancy at the time of appointment of the petitioner. There was irregularity in granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 after taking all the facts into consideration cancelled the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner.