AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard finally Shri C.A. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional GP for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Shri A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith, with consent.
The petitioner has been recruited on 01.07.2013 after advertisement. The advertisement was published after securing prior permission from the office of respondent No.2. The approval to his appointment has been sought thereafter and till date, no decision upon that proposal has been taken. Therefore, present writ petition has been filed on 06.02.2017.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed reply affidavit. In reply affidavit dated 07.08.2017, respondent No. 2 submits that two permanent / approved teachers viz. Shri U.P. Gulhane and Shri L.D. Sarode were earlier rendered surplus in the very same School and they lodged a complaint on 25.07.2013 with respondent No. 2 as also with the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati, seeking their absorption. This fact of employees being declared surplus was suppressed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 when they sought permission to advertise and recruit. Because of this complaint, respondent No. 2 claims that he has revoked permission granted on 25.03.2013 to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to advertise and to recruit.
It is further pointed out that the post occupied by the petitioner was found to be not open and as per roster point, a candidate belonging to backward class category ought to have been recruited.
The learned AGP has submitted that order dated 25.03.2013 was subject to availability of vacancy, non availability of surplus teacher and also adherence to roster point. As on all these counts, recruitment process is found to be vitiated, permission to recruit itself has been cancelled on 29.07.2013 and hence appointment of the petitioner could not have been approved.
Shri Thakkar, learned counsel supports the case of the petitioner.
We find that there could not have been such a contingent order on 25.03.2013. If Shri Gulhane and Shri Sarode were declared surplus, respondent No. 2 was aware and, therefore, could have declined permission to recruit. Not only this, these two Teachers had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 6069 of 2013 and after hearing the respective counsel on 07.04.2014, their writ petition was rejected. With the result, this Court found no substance in their claim for absorption. This order dated 07.04.2014 is within the knowledge of respondent No. 2 as he was party to that writ petition. However, he has not looked into that order while filing reply before this Court.
He has, however, pointed out a still later event i.e. event dated 04.12.2014 where after verification, backward Cell at Amravati has pointed out backlog with respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Thus, respondent No. 2 has taken defence that because of prevailing backlog on 25.03.2013 also, permission to recruit could not have been granted.
We find this attitude of the respondents wrong and also amounting to victimization of the petitioner. Permission to recruit was given on 25.03.2013 and after publication of advertisement and recruitment, that permission stood exhausted.
Therefore, on 25.07.2013 when Shri Gulhane and Shri Sarode complained, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could not have undone it as everything had become irreversible. In any case, if permission to recruit dated 25.03.2013 was to be cancelled, interest created thereby i.e. of the petitioner, ought to have been safeguarded. It appears that the petitioner was not even heard. It also appears that the petitioner got knowledge of order dated 29.07.2013 only through reply affidavit filed before this Court on 14.08.2017. Copy of this order dated 29.07.2013 is, however, not produced on record.
In this situation, we quash and set aside the said order dated 29.07.2013 and restore permission to recruit, given on 25.03.2013. After advertisement and recruitment, said permission could not have been touched at all by respondent No. 2. Similarly, for these reasons, we direct respondent No. 2 to grant necessary approval to the appointment of the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
With these directions, we dispose of the present writ petition accordingly. Respondent No. 2 shall pay the sum of Rs.3,000/( Rs. Three thousand only) towards cost of this petition.