The appointment of the Petitioner in the Open category was in contravention of the Recruitment Rules and the condition to the NOC, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Neela Gokhale, J. - Rule. The Respondents have filed their Affidavits in Reply. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The 1st Respondent is the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra, and the 2nd Respondent is the Education Officer of the Western Region. The 3rd Respondent is the Institution that runs the 4th Respondent school.

3. The Petitioner seeks a writ of this Court quashing an order dated 17th July 2018 issued by the 2nd Respondent, the Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai, Western Region. By that order, the Education Inspector refused approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as 'Shikshan Sevak' in the 4th Respondent school. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the 2nd Respondent to grant further approval as Full Time Assistant Teacher in the related pay scale and release of grant-in-aid for his monthly honorarium for three years and thereafter monthly salary in pay scale, together with arrears.

4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the Petitioner's claim primarily on the ground that the proposal for his approval suffered from various deficiencies. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have supported the Petitioner.

5. FACTUAL MATRIX

i. The Petitioner belongs to the Maratha Caste (Open category). He has completed his B.Com, B.A (English) M.A (Marathi), B.Ed. (English /Maths). He has worked in various educational institutions as a Part Time/Full Time teacher from 2000 to 2006.

ii. Responding to an advertisement dated 22nd March 2014 issued by the 3rd Respondent in the daily newspaper 'Maharashtra Times' inviting applications having qualifications of B.A and B.Ed. with reservations for SBC, NT(D) and OBC, the Petitioner applied for the post of an English Teacher. The selection committee interviewed him and other candidates and recommended his name for appointment to the said post. Accordingly, the Petitioner was appointed as a 'Shikshan Sevak' for three years, i.e., from 16th June 2014 to 15th June 2017. The school committee approved his appointment in its meeting and the Petitioner submitted his joining report.

iii. Despite various communications made by the Management with the Education Inspector for grant of approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, there was no approval forthcoming and eventually, by letter dated 17th July 2018, the Education Inspector conveyed his refusal to grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment as 'Shikshan Sevak' citing various deficiencies in the proposal submitted by the Management in that regard. This is the communication impugned in the present Petition.

6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

i. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that vacancies were created in the 4th Respondent school due to retirement of teachers namely, Mrs. Madhuri Lahane (B.A., B.Ed.), Mrs Sunanda Raut (B.A., B.Ed.) and thereafter Smt. Janhavi Tawade (M.A., B. Ed.). The Management had sought a NOC from the 2nd Respondent to fill up the available vacancies for NT(D), SBC and Open categories, by letters dated 21st February 2013, 25th October 2013 and 4th January 2014 respectively. The 2nd Respondent granted the required 'no objections' by a letter dated 20th October 2013 to fill three vacancies, of which two were for English subject. According to the Petitioner, there was a backlog in the NT(D) and OBC category and an advertisement was issued inviting applications from candidates having qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. with reservation for SBC, NT(D) and OBC.

ii. The Petitioner contends that he applied for the post from the Open category, was interviewed by the Selection Committee and pursuant to its recommendation was appointed on the post of English Teacher as 'Shikshan Sevak'. He gave his joining report and the Management approved his appointment.

iii. Mr Bandiwadekar contends that despite several requests and communications by the Management seeking approval for the Petitioner's appointment, there was no response from the 2nd Respondent. Copies of various com