The court ruled that procedural irregularities in the appointment process do not invalidate the appointment, especially when the candidate has served uninterruptedly for over a decade.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable immediately and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner by the present Petition challenges the Order dated 20th October 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Laboratory Assistant. Petitioner has sought for the following substantive reliefs:

“(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the Order dated20th October 2022 (being Exhibit “B” hereto) passed by Respondent No. 3 herein thereby refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner in Respondent No. 5 School and further be released to direct the Respondent No. 3 herein to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Lab. Assistant on 11th July 2012 in Respondent No. 5 School with all consequential benefits.

(B) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 herein to enter the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth system and issue Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner and further direct the Respondents to release grant in aid to the Petitioner since the date of his appointment Lab. Assistant on 11th July 2012 with all consequential benefits.”

Case of the Petitioners:

4. The case as set out by the Petitioner in the Petition, inter alia is that, there is a post of Lab Assistant in the Respondent No. 5 school, managed by the Respondent Nos. 4, which is an aided school; on 31/05/2012, one Mr. Harishchandra Vishram Palkar who was occupying the said post of Lab Assistant superannuated; the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 inquired with the Respondent No. 3 as to whether there are any surplus employee to be absorbed on the said post; no surplus employee was sent by the Respondent No. 3, as such Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 commenced recruitment process for the appointment of Lab Assistant; advertisement was published in the newspaper “Sakal” dated 21/06/2012 inviting applications from qualified candidates; Petitioner who was eligible and qualified applied for the said post; the selection Committee of the Respondent No. 4 found the Petitioner as a suitable candidate and consequently appointed the Petitioner to the post of Lab Assistant on 11/07/2012; Petitioner is working uninterruptedly on the said post since the date of his appointment; Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 tried to submit proposal/s seeking approval of the Petitioner’s appointment, which proposals the Petitioner claims that the Respondent No. 3 refused to accept; it was only on 31/03/2022 that the Respondent No. 3 received the proposal of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with all the documents, that were enclosed thereto, however, by the order dated 20/04/2022 the Respondent No. 3 refused to grant approval; Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7904 of 2022 challenging the Order dated 20/04/2022; vide order dated 07/07/2022 this Court set aside the order dated 20/04/2022 and remanded the matter to the Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the proposal in terms of the existing position on the date of the appointment, within a period of 6 weeks; Respondent No. 3 failed to comply with the order dated 07/07/2022, passed in Writ Petition No. 7904/2022, as such the Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 703 of 2022; subsequent to the filing of the Contempt Petition, Respondent No. 3 issued the order dated 20/10/2022 rejecting the proposal submitted by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5; that Contempt Petition No. 703 of 2022 was disposed of on 17/11/2022.

5. By the Order dated 20/10/2022 (Exh.B), the Respondent No. 3 has rejected the proposal (impugned order), on the following grounds:

(a) That the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not obtain prior permission in terms of the G.R. dated 6/2/2012.

(b) The advertisement was not published in two newspapers in terms of G.R. dated 6/2/2012.

(c) That there was backlog of reserved category. Without filling the post reserv