The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedure for filling reserved posts and the requirement for appointments from the open category to be on a year to year basis, as per Rule 9(9) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977.

1. The petition is filed by a Shikshan Sevak to challenge the decision dated 28-6-2014 taken by her employer, a school. It is informed to her that she was appointed on year to year basis on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe (for short, “S.T.”) category and the school had started process to fill the post by making appointment of S.T. category candidate. Reliefs of direction to the Education Department of the Government to the effect that it should give approval to the appointment of the petitioner on permanent basis and of direction to the school to give her appointment on permanent post of Assistant Teacher are claimed. Both the sides are heard.

2. Respondent No.4 is registered society and it runs a school, respondent No.5. This school gets 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government. This school has 32 sanctioned posts of teachers. 30 posts were filled and two posts of teaches were lying vacant. There was backlog of one post of S.T. and one post of N.T. (D), reserved categories. As there were two vacancies for two different subjects, on any of the two posts a candidate of S.T. or N.T. (D) category could have been appointed.

3. In the local news paper “Deshdoot” dated 19-5-2011 the school published first advertisement and invited applications from candidates of S.T. / N.T. (D) categories for filling two posts of Shikshan Sevak. As the present dispute is in respect of post of full time Shikshan Sevak for Semi English Medium, in this matter only facts and circumstances in respect of that post are being discussed. The expected qualification for this post was B.Sc. (B. Group) and B.Ed. In the advertisement, it was made clear that candidates were to come with their applications and relevant record directly for interview on 2-6-2011. The second advertisement was published on 3-6-2011 and in this advertisement the candidates were called for interview on 15-6-2011. The third advertisement was published on 16-6-2011 and the candidates were called for interview on 29-6-2011. In all the three advertisements there was similar matter and for the same post the candidates were called for interview.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the school did not get candidate from reserved category, S.T. category, for the present post and so the school applied to the authority, Education Department of the State Government, for permission to fill the post from candidate of open category. It is contended that the school had given undertaking to fill up the backlog in future. This application was given on 30-6-2011. It is contended that the Education Officer gave such permission by letter dated 11-7-2011, which was dispatched on 21-7-2011. It is contended that on 21-7-2011 itself another advertisement was published in the same news paper and candidates from open category were invited for interview.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that proper procedure was followed and she came to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak, for the aforesaid post. It is her case that, her appointment was for three years as per the scheme prepared by the State Government and it was on probation. It is her case that after completion of three years probation period satisfactorily, she was entitled to get appointment on permanent post of Assistant Teacher and she was entitled to get the regular salary. It is her case that she has completed the probation period satisfactorily and the school had submitted proposal for giving approval to her appointment on permanent post. It is contended that the Education Officer refused the permission by giving ground that the post was of reserved category. It is her case that she was appointed as against clear vacancy, she has completed satisfactorily the probation period and so she is entitled to get confirmation on the post of Assistant Teacher.

6. The petitioner has contended that she is from Other Backward Class (OBC), another reserved category. However, in the petition she has contended that she was treated as a can