GAJANAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed, being aggrieved by orders of the respondent No.4 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule refusing approval to the appointments of the petitioners as Shikshan Sevak. There are letters/orders passed by the respondent No.4 expressing inability to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the grounds which are mentioned in those letters.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the letter written by the respondent No.4 dated 21st Dec., 2012 and submits that, before the posts were advertised, permission from the Education Officer was sought; however, there was no response from the office of the respondent No.4 and the management wanted to fill in the posts from the reserved category candidates, respondent management proceeded to advertise the posts on 29th Dec., 2012. He submits that, the fact that permission of the Education Officer was sought by letter dated 21st Dec., 2012 is not in dispute. He further submits that, all the posts of Shikshan Sevak were advertised for various reserved categories. Two posts were advertised for Scheduled Tribe Category and third post for the V.J.N.T. Category. It is submitted that, in all 27 applications were received in pursuant to the advertisement and after adhering to the procedure, the petitioners were selected and appoint letters were issued in their favour. After appointments of the petitioner and other two candidates from reserved category, proposal was sent to the respondent No.4 for approval. However, the respondent No.4 in his letter dated 24.11.2013 addressed to the respondents No.5 and 6 pointing out six deficiencies/requirements at the end of management. Out of 6 deficiencies, four deficiencies were cured and the proposal was resubmitted to respondent No.4. He further submits that, by another letter, respondent No.4 communicated to the respondents No.5 and 6 that, approval to the appointment of the petitioners is rejected on the ground that though, during the period when the petitioners were appointed, there was general ban to go ahead with the recruitment in view of the fact that surplus teachers were required to be absorbed, the respondent No.6 went ahead with the recruitment process and appointed the petitioners and other three candidates; and second reason assigned was that, no prior permission was taken by the respondent No.6 from the respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, both the grounds are not sustainable inasmuch as, there is no denial to the fact that, respondent No.6 had written letter to the respondent No.4 to allow the respondent No.6 to fill in the posts from reserved category so as to fill in the backlog of those posts. He further invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 10th April, 2012 (Exh.L, page 49 to the compilation of the petitions) and submits that, by said resolution, time to fill in those posts from the reserved category was extended till 31st March, 2013. Therefore, the process undertaken by the respondent No.6 by issuing advertisement dated 29th Dec., 2012 was during the extended period to fill in the posts from backlog and, therefore, the action of the respondent No.6 to advertise the posts and fill in the backlog was justified in view of the extended period for filling in the backlog till 31st March, 2013. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitions deserve to be allowed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 invited our attention to the averments in the affidavit-in-reply and submits that, for the inaction on the part of the respondent No.4 in not giving timely instructions to the respondent No.6 to absorb surplus teachers and not acting upon the letter written by respondent No.6 on 21st Dec., 2012, the respondent No.6 proceeded to advertise the posts and after adhering to the procedure established, appointed the candidates after proper selection process. He submits that, it appears that, there are seven vacant posts in the respondent No.5 and 6 institutions. However, there are no any instructions from the respondent No.4 for absorption of any surplus teacher. As a matter of fact, two posts have been filled in out of surplus teachers as per the directions of respondent No.4. He, therefore, submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders taking in view the material placed on record.