Approval for appointment of educational staff must adhere to existing vacancies and established communication protocol; unmanaged delays by authorities warrant administrative accountability.

JUDGEMENT

(Per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by Respondent No.2-Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded by which the proposal submitted for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak has been turned down.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

3. The petitioner contends that Respondent No.3/Educational Institution is running Respondent No.4-School from 5^th to 10^th standard. It is further contended that on account of retirement of a permanent teacher, namely Smt. Shanta Narmada Karle, Respondent No.3 issued an advertisement on 27.02.2017 in a newspaper, namely, ‘Daily Marathwada’. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner had participated pursuant to the said advertisement and ultimately after being found eligible and qualified the petitioner came to be appointed vide appointment order dated 04.03.2017 by Respondent No.3.

4. It is further contended that pursuant to the appointment of the petitioner, Respondent No.4-Head Master of the School submitted a proposal to Respondent No.2-Education Officer on 05.04.2017 for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner as Shikshan Sevak for initial period of three years. Respondent No.2-Education Officer however, by the impugned order dated 27.08.2019 turned down the proposal submitted by Respondent No.4-Head Master on the ground that, as per Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 unless the teachers rendered surplus are absorbed, no recruitment could have been made as there was a ban on recruitment. Another ground on which the impugned order is passed is that, though Respondent No.4- Head Master has made an application to Respondent No.2-Education Officer seeking permission to advertise the post, however, Respondent No.2-Education Officer has not granted permission to the said advertisement. One more ground assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner is teaching the subjects of Hindi and Geography and the case of the petitioner is not covered by Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018 as it covers only subjects of Maths, Science and English, thus proposal submitted by Respondent No.4-Head Master thereby seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered.

5. Respondent No.2-Education Officer has filed an affidavit in reply inter alia contending that just one day before the retirement of earlier teacher, Respondent No.4-Head Master has advertised the post, Respondent No.4 has not taken permission for advertisement of the post. As per the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018 post of teachers can be recruited only for the subjects of English, Maths and Science, whereas the teaching subjects of the petitioner is Hindi and Geography. It is further contended that there are several teachers who have been declared surplus in Nanded District and those were directed to be absorbed. It is further contended that unless the surplus teachers are absorbed, no new recruitment to fill up the post in the School run by private management can be made. It is further contended that as the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(1) of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Sciences) Regulation Act, 1977 therefore, Respondent No.2-Education Officer has rightly passed the impugned order. Last but not the least it has been further contended that there was a ban on fresh recruitment by Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 and therefore the post on which the petitio