VIJAYKUMAR TUKARAM KASALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this writ petition, may briefly be stated thus -

(3.) Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the appointment of the petitioner had been approved on year to year basis by the respondents. The fact situation as it was existing at the time of termination of the petitioner, particularly, in respect of the workload, was existing even in October, 2003 when the approval came to be granted to the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the reinstatement and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the respondents have not granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his termination as the Tribunal has directed his reinstatement by quashing the order of termination. Mr. Marlapalle, learned counsel for the management, on instructions states that the management would pay the backwages of the petitioner as ordered to be paid by the School Tribunal. Mr. Tambe, learned AGP for the respondents states that on account of absence of adequate workload, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been granted from the date of his reinstatement and not from the date of his termination.