SAMT.ARCHANA AJAY WALVEKAR Vs. THE PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Office noting shows that the third Respondent has been served with the notice. The learned AGP represents the fourth Respondent. The case of the Petitioner is that she was appointed by the first Respondent to the post of Junior Clerk under the appointment order dated 3rd October 2010 from 1st October 2010 to 30th September 2013. The grievance in the Petition is as regards the communication dated 24th January 2011 issued by the third Respondent (Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Sangli) informing the second Respondent-the Principal of the concerned School that approval cannot be granted to the appointment of the Petitioner as there was a ban on employment imposed by the State Government when the Petitioner was appointed. The Petitioner has referred to the communication dated 15th September 2011 addressed by the third Respondent to the second Respondent. In the said communication, a reference has been made to the Government Resolution by which the ban was imposed on filling up the posts of non-teaching staff.

(2.) On 22nd December 2011, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the second Respondent stating that she was informed on 19th December 2011 that she was told not to sign the muster. She called upon the second Respondent-Head Mistress of the School to disclose reasons for not allowing her to sing the muster. On the said letter, there is an endorsement made by the second Respondent that the President of the School Committee has directed the Petitioner not to sign the muster.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is relying upon the Government Resolution dated 22nd March 2012. He submits that by the said decision, the ban imposed earlier on the employment was withdrawn. An affidavit has been filed by the second Respondent. The learned counsel for the first and second Respondents (Management of the School in which the Petitioner was appointed) contended is that the appointment of the Petitioner made by the earlier School Committee was not legal and proper and the same was made without considering the other eligible candidates. It is contended that the earlier School Committee has not taken into consideration the list of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. The reliance is placed on the proposal of the Petitioner sent to the Education Officer. It is contended that the present Governing Council of the first Respondent has taken an objection for the appointment of the Petitioner.