Strict compliance with the Government Resolution and Rules regarding the appointment process is essential, and appointments in violation of these provisions will not be approved.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2 - Education Officer vide which the latter has declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak with effect from 19.09.2017.

2. The petitioner contends that he had applied to respondent No.3 - Management pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.09.2017 published in daily 'Bahurangi Varta' inviting applications from the schedule caste category for the post of Shikshan Sevak. The interviews were scheduled on 19.09.2017. The petitioner was interviewed, selected and recommended for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak on 19.09.2017 itself and he immediately joined the said post on the same day, 19.09.2017. This entire exercise is completed on the same day.

3. On 26.04.2018, respondent No.4 - Head Master forwarded the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval as a Shikshan Sevak. Since no decision was forthcoming, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9020 of 2018 for seeking directions to the Education Officer to do the needful. Vide order dated 06.08.2018, this Court directed the Education Officer to decide the pending proposal in accordance with law and expeditiously. By the impugned order dated 06.08.2018, which was passed on the same day on which this Court passed an order, the Education Officer refused to accord his approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner contended that the Management had forwarded three applications to the Education Officer, dated 03.07.2017, 01.08.2017 and 01.09.2017, for seeking permission to resort to a new recruitment process. Though these applications were served on the office of the Education Officer, no steps were taken and finally, the Management held a special meeting on 06.09.2017 and decided to proceed to publish an advertisement for selecting a Shikshan Sevak. On 10.09.2017, such an advertisement was published in daily 'Bahurangi Varta'. It is further contended that the selection of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. There is no ground for any suspicion. The Education Officer cannot refuse approval to the petitioner. The reasons assigned by the Education Officer are baseless.

5. We had extensively heard this matter on 02.08.2021. We adjourned this matter for today only to find out whether the official inward register of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded would indicate the receipt of three purported applications dated 03.07.2017, 01.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 sent by respondent No.3 - Management allegedly seeking permission of the Education Officer to resort to a process for recruitment of teachers.

6. Today, the original registers are produced before us by the learned advocate representing respondent No.2 - Education Officer (Primary). He has himself gone through every sheet of paper with reference to the date of the letters being received by the inward department and the dates on which such letters are received. He informs us that in the entire inward register, which is intact and one would not find any interpolation, the letters dated 03.07.2017, 01.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 have not been recorded. To be doubly sure, we ourselves turned over every sheet of the paper of the inward register and we did not find any entry with regard to the three applications purportedly served by respondent No.3 - Management upon the Education Officer.

7. We have undertaken the above exercise in view of the strenuous submissions of the learned advocate representing respondent No.2 that these three letters were never received by the office of the Education Officer and there is no entry of the said letters in the inward register. With this submission, it is further contended that the Management may have created a record to create an eye - wash that they had made three applications to the Education Officer and that the Education Officer did not respond to these applications and hence