AHER SANJAY BAJIRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Petitioner before us, assails the order dtd. 24/11/2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 (at "Exh. A"), by which the Respondent No.2 has rejected the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.4 SchoolManagement, seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 15/6/2015 till 14/6/2018 and thereafter, as an Assistant Teacher ("impugned order"). Petitioner has sought for the following substantive reliefs :

(3.) The Petitioner claims that he was appointed on 15/6/2015 on the post of the Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.4 School under Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules). Appointment of the Petitioner was made against the vacant post of one Mr. Patil Rohidas Sukhar. Proposal of the Petitioner for approval was forwarded by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.2 on several occasions, however, the same was not considered by the Respondent No.2. Petitioner contends that it was only on 11/4/2022 that the Respondent No.2 declined the said proposal. By letter dtd. 26/5/2023, the Respondent No.4 clarified the queries raised by the Respondent No.2 in its order dtd. 11/4/2022. Respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 24/11/2023 (Exh. A), declined to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner ("impugned order") on the following grounds: