IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9114 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9114 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9114 OF 2007 Deepali Mandar Shitul Nee Mukadam ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. Dnyanasadhana & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 9117 OF 2007, 9119 OF 2007, 9121 OF PETITION NOS. 9117 OF 2007, 9119 OF 2007, 9121 OF PETITION NOS. 9117 OF 2007, 9119 OF 2007, 9121 OF 2007, 2007, 2007, 9123 OF 2007, 9131 OF 2007, 9136 OF 2007, 9138 OF 9123 OF 2007, 9131 OF 2007, 9136 OF 2007, 9138 OF 9123 OF 2007, 9131 OF 2007, 9136 OF 2007, 9138 OF 2007 2007 2007 91340 OF 2007 AND 9153 OF 2007 91340 OF 2007 AND 9153 OF 2007 91340 OF 2007 AND 9153 OF 2007 Mr. Alok Gupta i/b Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioners. Mrs. S.S. Bhande, AGP, for the respondents No.3 & 4. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: 30TH APRIL, 2008 ORAL ORDER. : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 3. All the petitioners have been appointed by the respondent No.1-Management as teachers in the Junior College viz. respondent No.2. They have been appointed against the vacancies of the reserved candidates and, therefore, there are directions from the respondent No.3 : 2 : viz. Deputy Director of Education dated 19th April, 2007 refusing the approval in view of the backlog of reserved candidates. The same has been challenged before this court on the ground that when the petitioners were appointed, the respondents No.1 and 2 had already appointed 34% reserved category candidates as provided under Rule 9(7) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981. Hence, when the petitioners were appointed, there was no backlog. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the system provided by the Government of Maharashtra for a roster of reservation of to the extent of 52% is contrary to and not in consonance with Rule 9(7) of the said Rules. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the roster system is being improved and is being made consonance with Rule 9 aforesaid and that the draft Rules made accordingly have been published. So far as compliance with the existing Rules is concerned, the State has accepted that whatever the petitioners contend is reasonably correct. 5. What we find is that the point raised by the petitioners is already covered by a judgment of this court delivered in Writ Petition No.3680 of 2005 (Nishad Sadashiv Pawar Vs Dnyansadhana College & ors.) on 25th : 3 : February, 2005 and, therefore, we need not ponder upon the said point once again. We are in agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment. 6. We, therefore, find that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners in all the above Petitions are illegal and bad in law and we quash and set aside the said orders. However, we wish to find out as to whether at the time of appointment of the petitioners, the reservation as desired under Rule 9(7) of the said Rules, was fulfilled by the respondent-Management or not. Therefore, we allow the Petition with the following directions: (a) The Deputy Director of Education shall hold an enquiry and assess as to whether at the time of the first appointment of each of the petitioners, 34% reservation as desired under Rule 9(7) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules was completed by the Management or not. (b) If the Deputy Director finds that on the date of appointment and during the continuance of the service, at any point of : 4 : time, 34% reservation has been completed by the Management, the Deputy Director shall approve the services of the petitioner/s in the respective categories as assistant teachers and/or as shikshan sevaks. (c) If the Deputy Director finds that at the time of appointment or during the continuation of their service, there is a lack of reservation, it will be open to the Deputy Director to refuse approval. However, we make it clear that persons once approved, either at the time of appointment or at a subsequent stage, shall not be disapproved if at a subsequent stage of enquiry it is found that there is a backlog. (d) The pay and salary as per the approval shall be released to the petitioners forthwith. (e) The orders of termination of service issued by the respondent-Management are kept in abeyance viz. if the petitioner/s services are approved by the Deputy Director then the termination letters shall stand : 5 : cancelled. It will operate only against those candidates whose services are not approved by the Deputy Director of Education. (f) The Deputy Director shall take this decision after hearing the Management and the petitioners who will cooperate with the Deputy Director to resolve the controversy. In case of rejection of the approval, the Deputy Director will pass a well reasoned order. (g) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Deputy Director of Education within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. 7. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute on the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [A.A. [A.A. [A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]