VIJAYKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties finally, by consent.

(2.) The petitioner challenges impugned order dtd. 19/10/2018 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the approval for his appointment as 'Shikshan Sevak' and prays that he be granted approval in the said cadre for the period from 23/10/2012 to 22/10/2015 and as assistant teacher from 23/10/2015 on-wards with consequential reliefs.

(3.) The petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak by respondent No. 4 institution in respondent No. 3 school. The petitioner's educational qualification is H.S.C.D. Ed. His appointment was as per the procedure and after the completion of the period of three years, he states that he is eligible to be appointed on the post of assistant teacher. The proposal for grant of approval to his appointment was submitted on 30/10/2012 to respondent No. 2, however it was returned to respondent No. 4 institution, stating that there was ban on the recruitment. Thereafter till 17/9/2016 neither the said proposal for grant of approval to his appointment was considered nor surplus candidate was sent on the post held by the petitioner. For the first time on 17/9/2016, one surplus candidate by name, Gulabchand Sattoji Rajbhoj was sent by respondent No. 2 for absorption, but respondent No. 4 institution took a stand that as large number of teachers were rendered surplus on the establishment of various schools run by respondent No. 4 itself, absorption of other candidate was not possible. As the request of the petitioner for grant of approval to the appointment was not considered and absorption of surplus candidate was insisted on the post held by the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2017. The said Writ Petition came to be decided on 5/7/2018 with directions to the Education Officer to decide the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner afresh within four months from the date of the order. The decision was not taken by the Education Officer within four months and therefore the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 187 of 2019. Thereafter his claim for approval to the appointment came to be rejected by the Education Officer on 19/10/2018, which is the impugned communication. His proposal has been turned down on the ground that there was ban on the recruitment in view of the Government Resolution dtd. 2/5/2012. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Government Resolution itself has been modified by the Government in subsequent Resolutions. Under the said circumstance, since the petitioner is in service since 23/10/2012, his service needs to be approved and he should be paid salary accordingly.