1 wp112.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2010 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | orders or | Court's or Judge's Orders directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date : 1st July, 2011. . The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the proposal sent by the Management for approving her appointment as an Assistant Teacher has not been considered by the Education Officer in its proper perspective. 2. It appears that a similar situation had arisen in Writ Petition no. 4455 of 2009 with respect to another employee from the same institution, who is respondent no.3 in the present Petition. The Division Bench by its 2 wp112.10 order dated 9th March, 2010 had directed as follows : "11. We have already stayed the same impugned order which is assailed in other five petitions, by assigning reasons in support of the same. The case of the present petitioner stand at higher pedestal than the case of other five petitioners. Other five candidates who are the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3209/2009, 3210/2009, 3212/2009, 3214/2009, 3215/2009, present petitioner being an earlier appointee, in the above narrated fact and situation, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition to the extent it relates to the petitioner and to the extent it refuses to accord approval to the appointment of the present petitioner only on the ground that there exists backlog of backward class candidate in the establishment of the school management. 12. It will not be out of place to mention at this juncture that according to the Education Officer, there is backlog of 24 posts, whereas, according to the management the backlog is of 15 posts. The school/management has placed on record statement indicating that there exists 10 vacancies and 03 vacancies are to come into being in the academic session 2010-2011. The school management has tendered an undertaking to the Education Officer and copy of which is placed on record assuring Education Officer that hereinafter the school management will not make any appointment of a candidate from the open category unless and until backlog is wholly removed. 13. We accept the said undertaking furnished by the school management treating it as an undertaking tendered to this Court and it is thus clear that hereinafter the school management shall not appoint any candidate 3 wp112.10 from open category unless and until the entire backlog is wiped out. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and more so the fact that the petitioner has been appointed six years back, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition. 14. The impugned order passed by Education Officer to the extent it relates to the petitioner and to the extent it refuse to approve the appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that there exist a backlog, is quashed and set aside. We direct the Education Officer to hold a denovo inquiry touching the question of grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner initially on probation for a period of two years and thereafter as a permanent employee after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, so also the school management. This exercise shall be carried out by the Education Officer uninfluenced by the fact that there exists a backlog of backward class categories in various schools administered by the respondent/management." 4. In our opinion, the present Petition can be conveniently disposed of, by directing the Education Officer to consider the case of the petitioner and the proposal submitted by respondent no.3 for approving the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher in accordance with law. That decision shall be taken after giving a hearing to both, the petitioner as well as 4 wp112.10 respondent no.3 within four weeks from today. 5. The Petition disposed of accordingly. The parties shall appear before the Education Officer on 11th July, 2011. ( M. T. JOSHI, J. ) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J) ga s/wp112.10