The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the circulars issued by the State Government, directing priority quota in the employment of project affected persons, and the obligation of the State to provide a priority quota of employment for project affected persons.

V.C. DAGA, J. :- This petition was heard by us on 22-12-2006 and the same was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded. Accordingly, the facts and reasons are being recorded.

2. This petition is burning example exhibiting gross impropriety in selecting and appointing the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant in the respondent No.5 School, known as Abhyankar Girls' School and Junior College, Yeotmal run by the respondent No.4 Womens' Education Society, Yeotmal. The School Committee of the respondent No. 5 School headed by its President Mr. Amarchand Pannalal Darda has selected and appointed his nephew i.e. real brother's son, the present petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Darda to the post of Laboratory Attendant. The approval to the said appointment was refused by respondents No.2 and 3 - The Director and The Deputy Director of Education., Hence, this petition.

3. Factual matrix reveals that the post of Laboratory Attendant was lying vacant in respondent No.5-school almost for a period of more than one year prior to the date of appointment. Respondent No.4-society issued an advertisement for making appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant with the prior approval of respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Education specifically mentioning in the advertisement that the said post was reserved for the Project Affected candidate.

4. The said vacancy was notified by respondents No. 4 and 5 to the Collector, Yeotmal on 31-12-2001. A request was made to him to forward waiting list of the candidates falling in the category of Project Affected Person maintained by his office so as to enable respondents No.4 and 5 to select candidate for the post of Laboratory Attendant. It appears that the Collector, Yeotmal forwarded list of the eligible candidates falling in the category of Project Affected Persons vide his letter dated 14-1-2002, which was received by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 15-1-2002. The list of the Project affected persons forwarded by the Collector was prepared according to the seniority of the candidates falling in the said category. It did not contain name of the petitioner or his father.

5. The interviews of the candidates as per advertisement were fixed on 16-1-2002. It appears that total 29 candidates were interviewed. The petitioner was one of them. It appears that the petitioner produced certificate dated 30-8-2000 issued by the Collector, Yeotmal certifying that Shri Prakashchandra son of Pannalal Darda (father of the petitioner) is a Project affected person with further certification that he has a minor son, by name; Mr. Shailendra Prakashchandra Darda, (petitioner herein). The date of birth of the petitioner, as per Birth Certificate produced on record, is 18-6-1966. Thus, on the date on which the said certificate dated 30-8-2000 was issued, he had completed 34 years of his age though the petitioner was shown as minor in the certificate dated 30-8-2000.

6. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee headed by his real uncle. He came to be selected as a meritorious candidate. The Head Master of the school sought approval from the office of the Deputy Director of Education to the said appointment. In reply, the Deputy Director of Education respondent No.3 by its letter dated 30-10-2002, rejected the approval inviting attention of the Head Master to the letter dated 23-10-2002 which directs that while making appointment on the vacant post, the appointment should be made as per the prevalent rules made by the State Government. It was further informed that vide circular dated 13-9-2000 post ought to have been filled in as per the said circular from amongst the candidates put on the waiting list of the Project affected persons prepared by the Collector, Yeotmal showing their respective seniority. Since the petitioner was not appointed from and amongst the list of the candidates forwarded by the Collector, the approval came to be rejected.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection instead of management