JUDGMENT :

G. A. Sanap, J.

In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 5/11/2019 passed by respondent No.4 Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur, whereby respondent No.4 cancelled the individual approval granted by respondent No.5-Education Officer to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled caste category. There was a vacancy of Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.7-School. The management of respondent No.6 therefore proposed to fill in that vacancy. Advertisement dated 19/6/2015 was published. After following due procedure the petitioner was appointed by order dated 6/7/2015 as Shikshan Sevak for a period of 3 years from 6/7/2015 to 5/7/2018. The Headmaster of respondent No.7 submitted a proposal on 6/7/2015 to respondent No.5-Education Officer for granting approval to the appointment. Respondent No.5 vide order dated 1/9/2016 refused to accord approval to the individual appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed Writ Petition No. 14194/2016 in this Court. This Court on 23/3/2017 allowed the Writ Petition and directed respondent No.5 Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. On 7/3/2019 respondent No.5 Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.6 and 7 on 10/8/2021 submitted a proposal for allotment of Shalarth ID to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, one Mr. Akash Tambe made a complaint to respondent No.2 and raised general objection to the order granting approval to the appointment. The complaint was forwarded to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and called their explanation. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 5/11/2019 passed the impugned order and thereby cancelled the individual approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court against this order.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a reply and opposed the petition. According to the respondents appointment of the petitioner was not according to the procedure. In the Academic Year 2015-2016, total 23 posts of Assistant Teachers were sanctioned by Respondent No.7 Secondary School, whereas 34 teachers were working at the said school. There was no vacancy at the time of appointment of the petitioner. There was irregularity in granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 after taking all the facts into consideration cancelled the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner.

4. It is further stated that the decision taken by respondent No.4 to review or recall approval was pursuant to the guidelines contained in Government Resolution dated 23/8/2017. A show cause notice dated 20/8/2019 was issued. They submitted a reply. Respondent No.4 granted them an opportunity of hearing. After full fledged inquiry and hearing approval being found illegal, respondent No.4 was constrained to cancel the approval.

5. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4. We have perused record and proceedings.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak was made by following due procedure provided under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981(hereinafter referred to as M.E.P.S Act and Rules). Learned Advocate further submitted that appointment was for a period of 3 years and on completion of period of 3 years the petitioner became confirmed employee. Learned Advocate further submitted that in view of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Nadhwade Gram Vikas Mandal, Mumbai v. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.14194/2016 and connected Writ Petitions dated 23/3/2017, the reopening of the issue