Oral Judgment:

Ajit B Kadethankar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the subject-matter, we propose to decide the Writ Petition finally by consent of the parties.

2. Subject-matter: Repeated return of the approval proposal at the hands of the respondent no.3 – the Administrative Officer (Primary), Primary Education Department, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation is the subject matter of the Writ Petition. Since 2012, the approval is kept pending by the Administrative Officer for this or that reason.

3.1. Heard Mr. Chetan Patil, learned counsel for Petitioner, Mr.A.P.Vanarase, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr.Bhushan Jadhav, learned counsel for the contesting party i.e. Administrative Officer (Primary), Primary Education Department, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred as ‘the Administrative Officer’].

                   3.2 Mr.Chetan Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a candid statement that since the approval to the proposal for appointment of the petitioner has been initiated by the school, service to the school management be dispensed with. Accordingly, service of notice on 4 and 5 stands dispensed with, at the risk of the Petitioner.

Facts in brief:

4.1. The facts are not controverted. On account of superannuation of one Mr.Dilshad Shaikh from the post of Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 30-04-2011, a post sanctioned for general category had to fall vacant in the respondent no.5 - School run by the learned counsel 4 - Management. Accordingly, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 initiated the selection procedure to fill up the subject-matter vacant post.

                   4.2. An advertisement inviting applications from the suitable candidates was published in a daily newspaper on 11-01-2012. Accordingly, the selection procedure was conducted, and the Petitioner came to be selected for appointment on the subject- matter post after screening.

                   4.3. On 18-01-2012, the petitioner came to be appointed on the subject-matter post of `Shikshan Sevak’ from General Category. The Petitioner joined the services on 19-01-2012. Consequently, the respondent Management submitted a proposal to respondent no.3 - Administrative Officer (Primary), on 26-03-2012 seeking approval to Petitioner’s appointment.

                   4.4 The initial proposal was returned by the concerned authority on 10-04-2012 citing reason that since the muster inspection was in progress during the period of 03-10-2011 to 05-10- 2011 in respect of number of students and the attendance, the proposal could not be decided at the relevant time. The proposal was simply returned with an oral advise to resubmit the same after some period once the inspection is over.

                   4.5. The record shows that on 26-03-2012, the School Management resubmitted the proposal thereby demonstrating that the subject-matter post was a sanctioned post and could be subjected to an approval. It appears that certain query as regards to roaster was raised by the Administrative Officer.

                   4.6. On 21-10-2014, the proposal was again moved by the respondent – Management. For clarification, it was explained that the Petitioner was appointed on duly sanctioned post. However, that time also, the said proposal was returned by the authority vide order dated 27-01-2015 assigning reason that the school has not yet progressed in increase of number of the students. (Page 44/Exh.I).

                   4.7 Again, on 01-03-2017 the proposal was resubmitted by the respondent – school Management. The School Management in so many words demonstrated that the subject-matter post was already sanctioned. It had fallen vacant due to superannuation of earlier employee Ms. Dilshad Shaikh. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner had by then completed 03 years service as Shikshan Sevak. Hence, Approval needed to be granted accordingly as Shikshan sevak and then as Assistant Teacher as per the mentioned dates.

                   4.8. The resubmitted proposal dated 01-03-2017 came to be returned vide a communication dated 15-05-2017, thereby demonstrating only three deficiencies in the proposal. It was informed that the appointment letter didn’t clearly show the date of appointment, there was no seal of the headmaster on Petitioner’s joining report, and attendance sheet of the participants in interview was not on record. The compliance of these queries, the proposal was returned back.

                   4.9. Accordingly, vide a covering letter dated 08-10-2014, the school management resubmitted the last comprehensive proposal thereby demonstrating that all the deficiencies and queries raised by the authorities in earlier response have been cured by the school management and the matter was fit to be approved. All the documents in requisite formats with requisite particulars and contents were attached to the Petition.

                   4.10. However, vide impugned order dated 27-02-2025, said authority again returned the proposal surprisingly, with seven new objections, which are as follows:-

                  

As such, the Petitioner has prayed for interference of this Court in the present Writ Petition.

SUBMISSIONS:-

5.1 It is the Petitioner’s contention that the school management has candidly demonstrated that the every proposal was accompanied with all necessary documents. The last proposal dated 08-10-2024 would also demonstrate that all the requisite documents have been already submitted by the school management and there is no deficiency as such. He submits that the documents are annexed to this petition also, which can be taken as compliance by the petitioner.

                   5.2. Mr. Chetan Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the reasons rendered by the Administrative Officer are instable. There is no consistency in the objections. Every time the proposal is returned for some new query, and upon compliance of the query again the proposal is returned for some new invented reasons.

                   5.3 Learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 i.e. the Administrative Officer filed his reply affidavit. We have minutely gone through the said reply. The reply affidavit is very short and it merely says that the proposal didn’t contain certain details for processing the approval proposal. Even it is not the objection that the proposal doesn’t contain necessary documents. It seems that objection is raised for not giving certain details in those documents. Learned Counsel Mr.Bhushan Jadhav would submit that deponent authority adheres to the contents of the reply affidavit, and the non-processing the proposal is thus stands justified.

                   5.4. When confronted to the copy of the proposal filed by the Petitioner which form part of the Writ Petition, particularly as regards to its contents, Mr. Bhushan Jadhav, Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is in fair agreement that the documents on record seem to have been submitted by the school management with the necessary details.

                   5.5. Mr. Chetan Patil repeats his argument that since from the first proposal, all the documents are submitted by the School Management.

                   5.6. Now, the only objection is in respect of not taking permission for issuance of the advertisement to fill up the subject- matter post. Interestingly, the Respondent No.3 does not say anything about the last objection. The Respondent No.3 has not stated anything in respect of the said objection in the reply affidavit. No other words require to show the approach of the Administrative Officer. The objections from Serial Nos.1 to 6 show that the authority has not even looked into the documents submitted by the School Management every, now and then. In most casual manner the objection are recorded, rather re-iterated. The reason at Serial No.7 is literally dug in the impugned order dated 27-02-2025.

                   5.7. May it be, the requirement of law is making the opportunity to the public to participate the selection procedure. It is on record that an advertisement was duly published on 11-01-2012 copy of which is at page 31 (Exh.B) of the Writ Petition paper book. It is also evident from page No. 36 of the Writ Petition paper book that in all, five candidates including the Petitioner, participated in the selection process. The attendance sheet bears signatures of the participants. The mark-sheets of the participants are also on record before us which forms part of the Writ Petition paper book.

                   5.8. Mr. Chetan Patil, Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed way back on 19-01-2012 and as such, the condition of seeking permission to publish the advertisement at this juncture, particularly in the light of the aforesaid facts, may not held fatal to Petitioner’s appointment.

CONCLUSION:-

6.1 We find that the concerned Administrative Officer has merely kept the proposal pending for one or the other reason right since 2012. Such conduct is highly objectionable. The reasons to return the proposal are always inconsistent and demonstrate that the concerned authority has deployed approach to invent some new reason every time. Each query/deficiency raised by the Administrative Officer is solved and complied by the School Management. On the background of the documents attached by the School Management with the proposal, which are also made part of the present Writ Petition, the reasons rendered in the last remittance of the proposal are not sustainable.

                   6.2 Moreso, the Education Officer seems to be as much casual as one could be, in filing such reply affidavit which is even not consistent with the reasons recorded in the impugned order. The reply affidavit absolutely skips to refer to the objection No.7 in the impugned order. This objection was never raised by Administrative Officer. The first return of proposal is of 2012. Thereafter at least three to four times the proposal is returned with some or other new grounds. In 2025, objection of not taking permission to publish advertisement is devised. Hence, we of considered opinion that the said objection of not seeking permission to publish advertisement shall not be fatal to the Petitioner’s proposal.

                   6.3. In the peculiar facts of the case, and the for the reasons recorded above, we have no room for doubt in our minds that fair opportunity to participate the selection procedure was well offered by the School Management. The subject-matter proposal was well equipped with the necessary and requisite information and the attachments. It is also not a case that the Petitioner or the School Management has played any fraud, made any misrepresentation of facts or carried out manipulation of record.

7. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Hence, we pass following order:-

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition stands allowed.

(ii) Within a period of four weeks from today, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall re-submit to the respondent no.3, the proposal seeking approval to Petitioner’s appointment dated 18-01-2012;

(iii) Within a period of four weeks from receipt of the approval proposal from the respondent nos.4 and 5, the respondent no.3 shall grant approval to Petitioner’s appointment w.e.f. 19-01-2012 as Shikshan Sevak and later as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 19-01-2015; and shall release honorarium and salary respectively, within a period of four weeks thereafter;

(iv) No interest shall be payable on the arrears;

(v) Rule is made absolute in above terms.