JUDGMENT:

G.A. Sanap, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Initially this petition was filed seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.3 to regularize the services of the petitioner as Assistant teacher with effect from 15/6/2016 and grant approval to the services of the petitioner as full time Assistant Teacher with effect from 15/6/2016. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.3 vide order dated 10/9/2019 rejected the approval to the appointment as full time Teacher and therefore, the petitioner by amending the petition prayed for quashing this order.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially appointed on 13/8/2012 as part time shikshan sevak by following the required selection procedure with effect from 14/8/2012 to 13/8/2015. This part time appointment was approved in the year 2016. One Shri S. B. Pardeshi superannuated on 31/5/2016. The workload of part time Assistant Teacher for the subject of Chemistry which was handled by Shri S.B. Pardeshi became available. The petitioner was already appointed and was handling the workload of part time teacher for the subject of chemistry. The petitioner was appointed/absorbed as full time shikshan sevak for chemistry subject vide appointment letter dated 15/6/2016. A resolution was passed by respondent No.4 to that effect on 31/3/2018. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as full time teacher to the open category post. The proposal for approval was submitted and till the date of filing of the petition it was not decided.

4. It is stated that on 10/9/2019 respondent No.3 rejected the proposal for granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that in accordance with Government Resolution dated 31/1/2001, appointment/upgradation of teacher from part time to full time post has to be done as per the roster and reservation policy. According to the roster checked on 6/2/2019 there was backlog of two posts (V.J-1 and N. T.-1) and there was no open category post available. On this ground, respondent No.3 refused approval to the appointment. In this regard it is the case of the petitioner that at the time of upgradation of the petitioner from part time post to full time post, the post of full time teacher had fallen vacant due to superannuation of Shri Pardeshi, who belonged to the open category. It is further stated that as per the roster for the year 2016 there were in all 7 vacant posts out of which one post was for open category candidate. In September 2016, certain surplus teachers were absorbed in respondent-school. One Mr. Pathak was absorbed under the open category. He took voluntary retirement in 2018, following which again one post for open category fell vacant. It is stated that right from the appointment of the petitioner in 2016 open category post was always available. There was no violation of reservation policy. Even if it is so assumed, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of management of respondent No.4. On this avernment the petitioner has prayed for relief as stated above.

5. Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit and opposed the petition. It is contended that the resolution for appointment of the petitioner on full time post is dated 31/3/2018, whereas appointment letter is dated 15/6/2016. No decision was taken in 2016 to appoint the petitioner on full time post. The School Committee took the decision to appoint the petitioner on full time course in 2018 and thereby rectified the appointment made with effect from 15th June, 2016. The ground for rejection of the approval has been reiterated in the reply. In short, it is contended that the proper procedure was not followed in the year 2016 for upgradation of the petitioner to full time Assistant Teacher. Prior approval was not obtained for initiation of the process of appointment. The roster was not properl