NILESH MAHADEORAO DHAKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The issue raised in the present Writ Petition is whether the bar under provisions of Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra State Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001") to fill in a post reserved for a particular reserved category by appointing a candidate from some other category would apply to a case governed by provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short "the Rules of 1981").

(3.) The petitioner who has obtained the qualification of H.S.S.C. D.Ed. and who belongs to Scheduled Caste had applied for the post of Shikshak Sevak pursuant to advertisement issued in that regard by the respondents 3 and 4. According to the said advertisement, one post of Shikshak Sevak was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Pursuant to the petitioner's application, he was duly interviewed and there after was issued an order of appointment dated 10th February 2010. Thereafter the proposal seeking approval to his appointment was forwarded by respondents 3 and 4 to the respondent no. 2. By communication dated 31st March 2011 it was informed by the respondent no.2 that as the appointment of the petitioner was made against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, approval to his appointment could not be granted. The respondents no. 3 and 4 thereafter again sought approval to the appointment of the petitioner. However, by communication dated 31st March 2012 the said request was rejected on the ground that his appointment was made on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and as there was a backlog of Scheduled Tribe candidates. The communications dated 31st March 2011 and 31st March 2012 issued by the respondent no.2 refusing to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment are the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.