Petitioner challenged order cancelling appointment after he was approved against a reserved Scheduled Caste vacancy as an Open Category candidate. Court rejected petition holding Education Officer acted correctly and reservation policy must be followed.
Writ petition rejected without orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
937.WP.1974.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1974 OF 2016
Sambhaji Ashokrao Tate
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Others
..RESPONDENTS
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate h/f Mr. Shaikh Layak S., Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. N.S. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2016
ORAL ORDER :
. The petitioner is objecting the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Education Officer thereby cancelling the approval accorded to the appointment of the petitioner. The order has been issued by the Education Officer after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10978 of 2014.
issued by the Management for appointment of teachers, he tendered an
1 / 4
937.WP.1974.16.doc
application, and after observing the due procedure in respect of making appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak, he has been appointed for a period of three years in view of the order of management dated 13.12.2013. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste or any reserved category however has been offered employment as against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Education Officer accorded approval to his appointment, initially it was not open for the concerned officer to revoke the approval.
2 / 4
937.WP.1974.16.doc
approval by order dated 23rd December, 2013 to the appointment of the petitioner as an open category candidate. Looking to the prescription under the advertisement that the post is earmarked for Scheduled Caste category, it was not permissible for the Education Officer to approve appointment as Open Category candidate. It would be open for the Zilla Parishad to investigate as regards action of Education Officer in according approval at relevant time by deviating from the establishment procedure. It is not a matter of dispute that there is a back-log of the Scheduled Caste category in the Institution. The petitioner on account of his appointment by passing the prescription under the advertisement cannot claim entitlement to the post. The Institution cannot be permitted
to frustrate the policy of reservation by deviating from procedure of appointment. The decision taken by the Education Officer is perfectly within framework of law.
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11107 of 2014. On perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that this Court has adopted a lenient view in a different set of circumstances. Even otherwise, no law has been laid down by the Division Bench in respect of observance of policy of reservation. Similarly, reliance is placed on an order passed by
3 / 4
937.WP.1974.16.doc
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5186 of 2004, decided on 27th June, 2005. The facts giving rise to the judgment are totally different and as such the view adopted by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matters cannot be made applicable to the instant case.
( K.K. SONAWANE, J. ) ( R.M. BORDE, J. )
SSD
4 / 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Education Officer could approve appointment of Open Category candidate in post reserved for Scheduled Caste.
Whether petitioner claiming appointment against reserved category is entitled to post given reservation policy.
Whether order cancelling appointment is maintainable.
Sambhaji Ashokrao Tate
State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
