{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3493 OF 2009 Balasaheb Changdev Tanpure R/o Talwada, Tq-Georai Dist-Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad 3. Jaibhawani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Georai, Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed Through its Secretary, 4. Jaibhawani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Talwada, Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed Through its Principal RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.R.Pawade h/f Mr.D.J.Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatage, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.S.S.Deogude, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : {2} 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order impugned in this petition dated 26.03.2008 and the earlier orders passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education, rejecting the proposal of the petitioner submitted by management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Teacher in respondent No.4 school. The petitioner also prays for directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to submit a fresh proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment. 2. In the light of limited relief, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition at this stage. We accordingly issue rule making it returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being heard finally at this stage. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus - According to the petitioner, since the petitioner possessed requisite qualifications of M.Sc and B.Ed. the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of Higher Secondary teacher in respondent No.4 school, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The petitioner was initially appointed on probation of two years by virtue of appointment order dated 21.06.2004. Respondent No.2 had granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner by order dated 30.03.2005. The management, on account of satisfactory completion of the period of probation, confirmed the services of the petitioner by order dated {3} 21.06.2005. Since the petitioner had completed the period of probation satisfactorily, the respondent management submitted a proposal to the respondents seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner. This proposal came to be submitted on 26.03.2008 however the same came to be turned down by the respondents by the order impugned in the present petition. The reason ascribed by the respondents for declining grant of approval to the appointment of the petition is that there was a backlog and the respondent management had not filled in the posts in accordance with the percentage of reservation provided under the law. The management, being aggrieved by the rejection of its approval submitted a representation on 12.08.2008 pointing out to respondent No. 2 that the percentage of reservation which was provided was 34 % while the management had filled in the reserved posts to the extent of 37.21 %. It was also pointed out that the general percentage of reservation of 52 % was inapplicable to the respondent school as the rule 9 of the MEPS Rules provides the extent of reservation of only 34%. It appears that the respondents did not accede to the request of the management which has ultimately constrained the petitioner to file petition before us. 4. It is not disputed before us by learned counsel for the parties that since Rule 9 of the MEPS rule provides extent of reservation of 34 %. The insistence of the respondent Deputy Director that the posts should be filled in to the extent of 52% is unsustainable in law. The aforesaid extent as to what would be the percentage of reservation is no longer a res integra in the light of the decision of Full Bench reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. Since the impugned order was rendered on 26th March 2008 and since the appointment of the petitioner was made prior to the amendment to Rule 9, which has raised percentage of reservation, the {4} respondent authorities may examine the effect of the amendment which is made to Rule 9 vis-a-vis appointment of the petitioner. Since the respondent management has submitted a proposal afresh and the same is pending, we are inclined to allow this petition by quashing the impugned order and directing the respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law and decide the proposal submitted by the management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner. This be done in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3493-09