JUDGMENT :

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. We have Mr. Jadhav learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length. With his assistance, we have gone through the record and considered the rival submissions. We have also heard Mr. Takke on behalf of the State and, to the extent necessary, Mr. D’Souza on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, an aided minority institution.

3. The Petitioner is an M.Com, B.Ed. She claims that she is entitled to be appointed as a teacher in the 2nd Respondent junior college. In this Petition, she assails an impugned order of 8th November 2017 issued by the 4th Respondent rejecting the proposal forwarded by the 2nd Respondent to grant approval for the appointment of the Petitioner as an approved teacher for Accounting and Auditing in the 2nd Respondent college.

4. Events overtook the Petition. There was a subsequent order of 4th June 2019. The Petitioner was granted leave to amend and this is challenged in prayer clause (a)(i). Prayers (a), (a)(i) and (b) read thus:

“(a) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2017 thereby rejecting the proposal for approval of services of the Petitioner:

(a)(i) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2019.

(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to approve the service of the petitioner as Teacher in Accounting and Auditing subject in the Respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 21.01.2016 and pay her the arrears of salary w.e.f. 21.01.2016 as per the prescribed pay scale.”

5. First, the facts. The 1st Respondent is a public charitable minority trust. It runs and operates the 2nd Respondent, a college of Science and Commerce in Mumbai. The Petitioner teaches at this college in the commerce stream.

6. Until 31st August 2014, one Suchita Acharya was the approved teacher for Accounting and Auditing in the 2nd Respondent college. She superannuated on that date. The junior college, through the Joint Director of Technical Vocational Education, therefore sent a proposal seeking a no objection certificate to appoint a full time Shikshan Sevak/teacher for Accounting and Auditing. This letter was dated 22nd June 2015. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also requested to the 3rd Respondent to send a list of surplus teachers so that they could be considered for appointment. The 1st Respondent is a certified linguistic minority and is therefore outside a reservation policy. There was no response from the 3rd Respondent. The 1st Respondent published an advertisement in Indian Express and Loksatta. The advertisement invited candidates for a full time Shikshan Sevak/Teacher for Accounting and Auditing and other posts. The Petitioner was one of the applicants. She received a letter calling her to an interview on 23rd December 2015. Since the 1st Respondent is registered minority institution, a local selection committee came to be formed. The Petitioner appeared before that committee. There were two candidates in question. One Sushma Pande was at S. No 1. The Petitioner was at S. No 2. Though selected, Ms Pande did not join her duties. The Petitioner was therefore asked to take up the post and to join duties. She did. She was given an appointment letter dated 21st January 2016. This appointed her as a teacher in MCVC Accounting and Auditing on probation for two years with effect from 21st January 2016.

7. The Petitioner took up her duties. Then the 2nd Respondent college through its governing trust forwarded a proposal for approval of the Petitioner’s services to the 3rd Respondent on 16th October 2017. It is now tha