SHASHIKANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed praying therein to quash and set aside the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Education Officer [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Latur, by which the proposal of the petitioners came to be rejected and direct to accord the permanent approval in favour of the petitioners and release their arrears of salary since the date of appointments. During pendency of this Petition, respondent no.3 passed the order dated 25th January, 2017. The prayer was made to amend the Petition, and accordingly, the said order is also assailed in this Petition.

(2.) We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Both the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 2518/2013 before this Court. In the said Petition, the judgment was pronounced on 23rd October, 2015. In order to avoid repetition of reproducing facts and the arguments and the reasons assigned by this Court in the said judgment, we deem it appropriate to reproduce para 2 to 14 of the said judgment, which read thus:

(3.) Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, it appears that the Education Officer [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Latur, has taken decision, thereby rejecting the approval to the appointments/services of the petitioners. By the impugned communication dated 09.05.2016 [Exhibit G Colly Page 75], the respondent no.3 has stated three reasons for granting approval to the appointment of the petitioners; firstly, without having sanctioned post the appointments have been made, secondly, sanction for such post has been received after appointment, and thirdly, instead of absorbing surplus teachers, and in absence of sanctioned post and also without seeking permission of the respondent no.3, appointing the employees. With the above reasons, the respondent no.3 has refused to accord approval to the appointments of the petitioners and continuity in their services. Upon careful perusal of the said communication, there is no reference made in respect of the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2518/2013. Therefore, it appears that the Education Officer in a very casual manner even without making reference of the directions issued by this Court, has dealt with the proposals for appointment and continuity of services of the petitioners, submitted by the respondent management.