KHUSHAL SADASHIV MEDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners have put-forth prayer clause-B as under:

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner No. 1 is HSC passed and the Petitioner No.2 is SSC passed. On 04 09.2015 Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 published an advertisement in Daily Newspaper "Dainik Lokmat" for the post of Shipai Sevak and in pursuance of said advertisement the Petitioners applied for the said post and have undergone the selection process. Accordingly, the Petitioner No.1 appointed to the post of Shipai Sevak under the reserved category with the Respondent No. 4 and the Petitioner No. 2 was appointed for the post of Shipai Sevak under the open category. Thereafter, both the Petitioners joined on 21/9/2015 and while joining both of them have furnished an undertaking that they will be abide by the terms and conditions described in appointment letter. On 14/9/2015 the Managing Committee of the Education Society passed the resolution for submitting the proposal for approval to the Education Officer - Respondent No.3 and on 28/12/2015, in pursuance of the said resolution the proposal for approval of both the Petitioners were submitted by the Respondent No.5. However, on 23/2/2016 the Respondent No.2 rejected the said proposal on the ground that as per G. R. dtd. 2/5/2012 unless 100% absorption of surplus teacher is done no recruitment of teaching and non-teaching employees would be made and as per G. R. dtd. 20/6/2014 the proposed committee shall take decision in respect of grant of approval as well as grant of permission of the new recruitment, but no such permission has been granted by the said committee.