ssp 1 WP 3481 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3481 of 2010 Mahesh Khandu Thombare .....Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for the petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardoza, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.M.V.Limaye, for respondent No.3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 25-06-2009 issued by respondent No.2, by which the respondent No.2 has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a peon in the school run by respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been appointed in the said school as he is a physically handicapped person and there was 3% reservation available for physically handicapped person and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner should have been approved. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any case, the vacancy was also available in the Management at the relevant time. ssp 2 WP 3481 of 2010 2. The petition is resisted by the Department and affidavit-in- reply has been filed by the Zilla Parishad, Raigad-Alibag. In the affidavit, it is averred that there was no approved sanctioned post available as per new staffing pattern in view of the Government Resolution dated 25-11-2005 and yet the Management had appointed the petitioner. In our view, since the Institute i.e. respondent No.3, is a granted institution, the Government is justified in finding out as to whether the approval can be granted and whether the management has followed the rules. It is pointed out that even no advertisement was issued for filing of the post in question and the petitioner was appointed by the management without following the due process of law. 3. It is pointed out that at the relevant time, as per the new educational pattern, no sanctioned post was available and the management appointed the petitioner without following due process of law and without sanction. Since the Management appointed the petitioner without following procedure prescribed, the respondent No.2 is justified in refusing to grant approval to such appointment. However, the petitioner can claim salary from the Management and the Management is directed to pay salary to the petitioner with arrears if any, from their own funds without asking any financial assistance from the Government. It is for the Education Officer to take appropriate action against such Management ssp 3 WP 3481 of 2010 who has given such appointments. 4. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )