BALAJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) Mr. V.S. Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 is a registered Trust, who runs respondent No.5 school. On retirement of a senior employee at respondent No.5 school, management made correspondence with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, seeking permission to issue advertisement to fill vacancy of Assistant Teacher on establishment of school. Since there was no response from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 authorities, management published an advertisement dtd. 2/1/2016, inviting applications from qualified candidates, belonging to V.J. category. The petitioner being eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher, responded to the advertisement and after going through selection process, came to be appointed vide order dtd. 7/1/2016. The respondent No.5 submitted proposal dtd. 12/1/2016 seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner. However, respondent No.3, vide impugned order dtd. 31/5/2018, rejected said proposal without assigning justifiable reasons.

(3.) Mr. Panpatte, would submit that the impugned order depict total non application of mind. The petitioner possess requisite qualification and has been appointed against a clear vacancy as per reservation roster, hence approval ought to have been accorded to his appointment. He would, therefore urge, to quash and set aside impugned order and direct the respondent No.3 to grant approval so also release consequential benefits.