RAMLING JANARDAN NAGTILAK Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. ig Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.06.2005 the petitioner was appointed to the post of 'Peon' with respondent no. 3 school. The appointment was made after following due procedure. It was on permanent, clear, vacant and sanctioned post. On 17.12.2007, the proposal for approval to the petitioner's appointment was sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4. The hearing was conducted in the office of respondent no.4 about grant of approval to the petitioner's appointment on 29.06.2009 and 18.08.2009. On 01.10.2009, respondent no.4 was pleased to refuse to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment citing Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 addressed representations dated 23.07.2012, 10.07.2013, 26.06.2014, 17.12.2012 and 26.08.2013, stating that the reliance on the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 for consideration of approval to the petitioner's appointment was misplaced, since the petitioner's appointment was much prior to the issuance of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 and the Government Resolution cannot be made applicable retrospectively. On 14.07.2014, respondent no.4 is still pleased to reiterate that the petitioner is not entitled for approval to his appointment as Peon. Hence this Writ Petition.