Wp 9999/2010 1 IN THE HICH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9999/2010 The New Miraj Education Society and Anr. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandivadekar for petitioner Mr.Samir Patil,AGP for Res.1 & 2 CORAM- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE 19th April,2011 P.C. . Heard counsel for the parties. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.2 was appointed on a part time post of Shikshak Sevak in the academic year 2006-2007 . Initially, approval to that appointment was not granted by the competent authority. As a result, petitioner no.2 filed Writ Petition before this Court which was disposed of as statement was made on behalf of the competent authority that the petitioner’s claim has been considered and approval to her appointment to the post of part time Shikshak Sevak has already been granted. 2 According to the petitioner, the very post on which petitioner no.2 was appointed on part time basis has been converted to full time post. In that view of the matter , petitioner no.2 came to be appointed on the full Wp 9999/2010 2 time post in the year 2009-2010. However, the competent authority has rejected the proposal sent by the management on the ground that the post on which petitioner no.2 has been appointed as full time Shishak Sevak was against the backlog of reservation. It is this decision which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The factual position stated in the impugned order has been reiterated on affidavit filed by Pandurang Patil , Assistant Director of Education . It is stated in the reply affidavit that as per the rules, total six posts were available in petitioner no.1 school in open category. However, there are presently seven teachers in open category appointed as approved. In the circumstances, one additional post has been filled up in the open category which should have been filled in by the reserved category candidate. It is further stated on affidavit that apart from the seven posts in open category one post ought to have been filed in the N.D.category , one post in S.C.category and one post in O.B.C.category. After giving the break up of the posts in respect of appointment made by the management, it is stated that petitioner no.2 is from open category . Therefore,he could not have been appointed against the post earmarked for back log of one post from scheduled tribe category and one post from O.B.C.category. As a result, approval cannot be granted to the appointment of petitioner no.2 in full time category. 3 We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made in the reply affidavit on the above terms.The factual position stated in the Wp 9999/2010 3 reply affidavit is reinforced from the order dated 16/9/2009 passed by the Respondent no.2. In addition, we find that the initial appointment of the petitioner was only in part time post. The fact that the said part time post was later on converted to full time post, that would not entitle the petitioner no.2 to be automatically appointed or being considered for appointment to such full time post unless the procedure required for appointment to full time post was to be followed by the management. Further, it is mentioned in the impugned order itself that so far as part time post is concerned , reservation is not insisted upon, nor any strict procedure is adhered to. Even for this reason the petitioner cannot succeed in the present petition. The management will have to follow mandatory procedure required for filling in the vacancy of full time post including by filling up the reserved category post,by following the prescribed procedure. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR ,J.)