IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2009 Sanjay s/o Sukhdev Sonawane ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. N.N.Desale holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari Advocate for applicant in C.A. No. 12195 of 2009 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 15th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. According to the petitioner, he was working as part time assistant teacher since last ten years with the respondent No. 4 – School. According to the sanctioned strength, nine posts were available to the quota of the teaching faculty of respondent No.4. Out of nine, five teachers are belonging to O.B.C. category. According to the petitioner, he received yearly approval as part time teacher for ten years. As the Head Master of the School from open category retired, the Management forwarded proposal to the Education Officer for appointment as full time teacher, which was turned down by the ( 2 ) Education Officer, vide communication dated 27th July, 2009, stating therein that there is backlog of candidates with the Institution in respect of candidates belonging to S.C. - 1, S.T. - 1 and N.T. - 1. It was also observed that there is dispute in the Management. 2. The learned counsel for the Management states that there is no dispute in the Management. The petitioner worked for ten years as part time teacher. After retirement of Head Master, the post which is for open category, became vacant, and, as the petitioner worked for 10 years as part time teacher, the proposal was forwarded to the Education Officer for approval and the name of petitioner was recommended for full time teacher. The Education Officer filed affidavit in reply. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of availability of backlog, it was intimated to the Managerment that since 1997 onwards it was obligatory on the part of Management to appoint candidate from reserved class i. e. S.C., S.T., and V.J.N.T., but they did not do so, though the post of full time teacher became vacant. The Management shall adopt reservation policy first. Therefore, on that ground, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. 3. The learned counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in Shakuntala Ganpatsa Shirbhate V. Industrial Weaving Co-operative Society (1994 (1) Mh.L.J. 218) ( 3 ) and Kankavali Shikshan Sanstha and ors. V. M. R. Gavali and ors. (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3586) and Rule 9 (9) (a) of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and taking into account the provisions of Rules 9 (9) (a), he submits that if it is not possible for the Management to appoint candidate belonging to reserved category, then the person belonging to rest of the castes shall be considered for appointment, as enumerated in the Rules. He placed reliance on the Government resolution dated 10th June, 2005, and submitted that if part time teacher discharged his duty for more than six years, he could be considered for regular employment. 4. We have perused the Judgments, cited supra. 5. Rule 9 (9) (a) of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 provides as follows: “In case it is not possible to fill in the teaching post for which a vacancy is reserved for a person belonging to a particular category of Backward Classes, the post may be filled in by selecting a candidate from the other remaining categories in the order specified in sub-rule (7) and if no person from any of the categories is available, the post may be filled in temporarily on a year to year basis by a candidate not belonging to the Backward Classes.” 6. We find that in the year 1997 the Education Officer intimated the Management that there is backlog. The Management, as ( 4 ) per the Rules, is required to follow the roster policy, as enunciated under Rule 9 (7) and 9 (9) (a). Assuming that the Management is not intimated by the Education Officer regarding reservation / roster to be followed by the Management, it cannot be said that the Management is not aware about the reservation policy. 7. In the facts of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to take benefit of Rule 9 (9) (a) of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, and therefore, the ratio laid down in the Judgments, cited supra, are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 8. The reservation / roster policy has to be strictly followed by the Management, otherwise very object of the reservation policy will be frustrated. The Management is now willing to appoint the petitioner, on a regular post, as full time teacher, on the vacant post of Head Master, who got retired and served as open category candidate. We find that this is the best opportunity for the Management atleast now to follow the reservation policy and appoint a candidate belonging to the reserved class. 9. By an order dated 21st November, 2009, we had directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon to disclose as to whether the persons who were appointed against reserved posts in the respondent Institution, got their castes verified. We find that no ( 5 ) proposals were forwarded for verification of the caste claim of the persons who were appointed as against candidate belonging to O.B.C. category. We direct the Management to forward the proposal of such teachers for getting their castes verified from the concerned Caste Verification Committee. The proposal shall be forwarded within four weeks from today to the Caste Verification Committee. All these teachers shall co-operate in the caste claims filed before the Caste Verification Committee. In the light of the observations made, we find no merit in the petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/wp/5557/09