14-wp-2324-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2324 OF 2011 Padmashree Annasaheb Jadhav Bharatiya Samaj Unnati Mandal at Bhiwandi & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Shri. N.V.Bandiwadekar Advocate for petitioners Mrs. M.S.Bane AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane refusing to give approval to the appointment of one Rakesh Raghu Patil (petitioner no.3). He was appointed on 1st July, 2006 by the Management Padmashree Annsaheb Jadhav Bharatiya Samaj Unnati Mandal (petitioner no.1), the petitioners had forwarded the entire record and sought approval of the Education Officer to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 in the petitioner no.2 college/institution. 2. That approval was denied on two grounds, firstly, that there is a backlog of the reserved category candidates which has 1 14-wp-2324-11.doc not been filled in by the 1st petitioner Management and secondly, N.O.C. of the department has not been obtained. 3. Notice was directed to be issued and in pursuance to which the Education Officer is present. An affidavit is also filed by him. 4. Upon a perusal of the affidavit, it is clear that the justification of the impugned order on the ground of backlog in the appointment of the reserved category candidates is concerned, that issue stands concluded by series of judgments which have been rendered by this Court and reference to which has been made in the writ petition itself. There is no denial of this position. In these circumstances, as far as the aspect of the approval being refused on the ground of alleged backlog is concerned, that reason cannot be sustained in law. 5. It is stated that the concept of N.O.C. of the Education Officer has been introduced so as to take care of eligible candidates who have been rendered surplus. Ultimately, the department has to ensure that such surplus candidates are absorbed in the schools in the first available vacancies. That is how the M.E.P.S. Rules and particularly, Rule 25 has been pressed into service. 6. On the last occasion, the parties were given time so as to seek instructions as to whether the available surplus 2 14-wp-2324-11.doc candidates would be accommodated by the petitioners in the first available vacancy. Mr. Bandiwadekar on taking instructions from the petitioners makes a statement that the respondent no.2 Education Officer should approve the appointment of the petitioner no.3 and in the first available vacancy at the petitioner no.2 institution, the petitioners will intimate to the Education Officer the vacancies and the Education Officer must forward the name of the eligible candidate within a reasonable period. The Management will then, consider appointment of such candidate in the first available vacancy. 7. The respondents and particularly, the Education Officer is agreeable to this course. It is stated that the surplus candidates have already been notified and it is not if the details are not available, yet, as soon as the Management intimates that there is a vacancy at the institution, the respondent no.2 Education Officer shall forward the details of surplus candidates to the Management within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the intimation of vacancy. The petitioners will then, consider the said candidate for appointment in the vacancy. 8. As far as the approval for the present academic year is concerned, from the chart which has been placed before 3 14-wp-2324-11.doc this Court which is taken on record and marked `X’ for identification, it is clear that there are no surplus candidates. Therefore, the direction of this Court based on the statement of the Management shall be read as applicable from the academic year 2012-2013. In other words, the first available vacancy in that academic year should be filled in by the Management as far as possible from the surplus candidates the details of which should be notified in the above manner. In no case now the Education Officer can refuse to approve the appointment of the petitioner no.3. He is therefore, directed to approve the appointment of petitioner no.3 within a period of two weeks from today and intimate the same to the petitioners in writing. Writ petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs. Needless to state that in terms of the applicable rules, the appointment shall be approved with effect from 1st July, 2006. Further steps including release of salary will be taken by the Education Officer in terms of order and directions issued to him. [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] 4