IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that educational authorities must respond timely to requests for teacher appointments, and that failure to do so cannot be used as a basis to deny approval for appointments made in good faith by school managements, especially when such appointments are in the interest of students and education.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GS PATEL, J. - Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Petition taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. A two-page letter of March 2022, with 16 separate points, has resulted in the complete obliteration of nine years of unblemished service as a teacher of the 1st Petitioner. As Mr Bandiwadekar points out, there is a wholesale non-application of mind. Every single one of the relevant documents has been ignored. Accusations of delay are made against the 2nd Petitioner management, but the wholly unexplained and unconscionable delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent is simply papered over as if it is immaterial. The Petition has, unusual for such cases, taken every single one of the 16 points in the impugned communication of 22/3/2022 at pages 52 and 53 and provided an answer based on the records.

3. The relevant facts are these. The 2nd Petitioner is a Trust and an Educational Institution under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950. It runs one school called the New English School and Guruvarya Kakasaheb Sapre Science Junior College ("the School") at Devrukh, Taluka Sangameshwar, District Ratnagiri. The School has standards 5 to 12 and is a fully-aided school: it receives 100% aid from the State Government. The service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff in the School are thus governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 ("the MEPS Act") and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 ("the MEPS Rules"). The 1st Respondent is the State of Maharashtra through the School Education Department. The 2nd Respondent is the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region. The 3rd Respondent is the Educational Officer (Secondary) of the Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri. It is he who has issued the impugned order.

4. The Petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs:

<WXY>"(b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be Pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 22/3/2022 issued by the Respondent No. 3, and accordingly the Respondent No. 3 may be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 as a Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 1/7/2014 for a period of 3 years, and thereafter the further approval as Full Time Assistant Teacher in pay scale w.e.f. 1/7/2017, and to release the grantin-aid for payment of monthly honorarium for 3 years and monthly salary in pay scale w.e.f. 1/7/2017, with all arrears. (c) After the approval would be granted by the Respondent No. 3 as prayed in prayer clause (b) above, that by a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 grant permission to enter the name of the Petitioner No. 1 in Shalartha Pranali and to allot Shalartha I.D. to the Petitioner No. 1 as Shikshan Sevak / Assistant Teacher in the aided Secondary School of the Petitioner No. 2 Management, with all consequential benefits."</WXY>

5. On 30/6/2013, a permanent and approved full-time teacher, one Smt Shital Prakash Sardesai, retired from service in the 2nd Petitioner's school. Mrs Sardesai was in the open category. She had a B.A. and B.Ed. (Marathi). She taught Marathi to 9th and 10th standard students. Her post was a sanctioned post. On her retirement, it fell vacant. The School needed a qualified Marathi teacher.

6. On 9/1/2014, the Headmaster of the School told the 3rd Respondent about Mrs Sardesai's retirement and sought guidance for a new appointment of a teacher for the Marathi subject.

7. There was no response. At this very stage, Mr Bandiwadekar draws our attention to a Circular or Government Resolution of 5/4/2018 which says, referring to various orders of the Courts noting the lack of timely decision making, that approvals after appointments must be decided within eight weeks.

8. The underlying principle of this and of the High Court decisions is clear, , namely that when approval or guidance