S. S. SHINDE, J.

This Petition is filed with the following prayers :

(B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19-3-2016 issued by respondent No. 2, refusing approval to the appointment of the petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a permanent Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 4 school;

(D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to pay unpaid salary to the petitioner as per the pay scale applicable to the post occupied by her.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in respondent No. 4 School with effect from 22-12-2009. The appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak in respondent No. 4 School was approved by the office of respondent No. 2 on 17-8-2010. The petitioner has completed period of Shikshan Sevak (i.e. three years) on 21-12-2012. In view of the provision of section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short ‘Act of 1977’), the petitioner has acquired deemed permanency in service. After completion of period of Shikshan Sevak, proposal was submitted in the office of respondent No. 2, seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner on permanent basis.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 17-12-2014, respondent No. 2 was pleased to reject the said proposal on the ground that there were surplus teachers in the school, and there was no vacancy. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 11340/2015, Rajashri Hanumant Rokde vs. State of Maharashtra and others, challenging order dated 17-12-2014, with further prayer to direct the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. This Court was pleased to dispose off the aforesaid Writ Petition, vide order dated 18-1-2016, directing respondent No. 2 to take final decision on the proposal dated 21-1-2015 submitted by the school.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 22-12-2009, and she has completed period of Shikshan Sevak of three years. It is also undisputed that her appointment as Shikshan Sevak was approved by respondent No. 2. In the light of completion of period of Shikshan Sevak, the petitioner was entitled for deemed permanency in service, in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Act of 1977. All these aspects of the matter were mentioned in Writ Petition No. 11340/2015. Ignoring entitlement of petitioner to get approval to her appointment as an Assistant Teacher on permanent basis after completion of period of Shikshan Sevak (probation period), respondent No. 2, vide order dated 19-3-2016, has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that sanctioned posts in the said school were reduced. The reduction in the number of sanctioned posts cannot be a valid ground for refusal/denial of approval to a permanent employee. Even in the case of reduction in the sanctioned posts, a permanent employee can be declared as surplus, and he/she should be accommodated on another vacancy in view of Rules 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘Rules of 1981’). It is further submitted that the Education Officer has lost a sight of the provisions of section 5 of the Act of 1977, so also the provisions of Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules of 1981, and has erroneously refused/denied the approval to the appointment of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 19-3-2016. Therefore, he submits that, the Petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent