NAGESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners-Educational Institution approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:-

(3.) The petitioner contends that respondent no.5 runs respondent no.6-School at village Talni, Taluka and District Nanded. It receives 100% grant-in-aid for 5th to 10th Standard. On 18/7/2013, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for the unreserved post of Shikshan Sevak. The petitioner being qualified and eligible, responded to the advertisement and after following due process of law, he came to be appointed w.e.f. 29/7/2013. On 13/9/2019, respondent no.6 submitted the proposal to respondent no.3 for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak. The respondent no.3 accorded such approval vide order dtd. 13/9/2019. Thereafter, the proposal for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali was moved. The respondent no.3 recommended the proposal vide his order dtd. 21/11/2019. However, respondent no.2 raised certain deficiencies vide his communication dtd. 13/10/2020, therefore, the fresh proposal was submitted after removing deficiencies with necessary clarification, as regards to the staffing pattern as on the date of the advertisement. The supporting documents were made part of proposal. The respondent no.2 directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to remain present for hearing on 13/7/2021, later on, passed impugned order dtd. 23/7/2021 canceling approval granted to the petitioner's appointment, so also rejected the proposal for inclusion of petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali.