1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6109 OF 2009 Shri Sanjay Bhimrao Shinde ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...... Respondents. --- Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Mandar Limaye for respondent No.3. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17TH JULY, 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 3. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 refusing to grant approval to the order of appointment passed in favour of the petitioner in the post of 2 senior clerk. Petitioner, initially, was appointed as a junior clerk on 12/07/1992. Thereafter, post of senior clerk became vacant since Mrs Rohini Patil who was working as a senior clerk in the said school managed by respondent No.3 expired and, therefore, the post became vacant. The management taking into consideration seniority of the petitioner as well as his educational qualifications promoted him to the post of senior clerk by order dated 31/12/2007. Petitioner joined the said post from 01/01/2008. Application for approval sent by the management, however, was not granted by the Education Officer by order dated 25/06/2009. Respondent No.2 had refused to grant approval on two grounds. The first reason which is given in the impugned order is that up-to-date seniority list has not been annexed to the proposal submitted by the management. The said reason is totally incorrect since a copy of the seniority list was very much annexed to the proposal as can be seen from the the list of enclosures which are mentioned below the proposal. The second reason given in the impugned order is that the post of senior clerk was not available as per Government Resolution dated 25/11/2005. The said reason is also clearly illegal. Perusal of the said Government Resolution dated 25/11/2005 shows that two posts of senior clerk were available to the management as per the strength of students in 3 the said school. Petitioner, therefore, was clearly promoted in the said sanctioned post. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly illegal. The third reason which is given is that the backlog of reserved category candidates has not been filled-up. This reason is also illegal since the petitioner himself belongs to Hindu Vadar Caste i.e. D.T.N.T. Initially, he was appointed as a junior clerk and, therefore, since the vacancy had arisen on the death of Mrs. Rohini Patil, he was promoted in the said post. Since the petitioner belongs to reserved category as per rules, this objection also cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval to the promotion of the petitioner in the said post with further directions to release grant in aid for payment of salary to the petitioner within four weeks from today. 5. Writ Petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 6. Petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J) 4