The Court found procedural irregularities in the recruitment process but noted that the appointed candidate was not at fault. Held that the post of Junior Clerk was sanctioned and clear. Quashed the rejection order and directed the Education Officer to approve the appointment from 11.08.2022 and issue Shalarth ID. Imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000 on the management for procedural lapses, payable within 30 days.

Public employment in aided private schools must align with fundamental rights and government-mandated transparency in the recruitment process. Where the appointed candidate fulfills eligibility and procedural lapses are attributable solely to management, the employee should not suffer consequences. (Para 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 21)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction

2. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXVII, Rule 4

Subjects: Appointment Proposal — Junior Clerk — Sanctioned Post — Recruitment Process — Prior Government Permission — Irregularities — Fundamental Rights — Public Employment — Approval — Costs Imposed

Nature of the Litigation: The petition challenged the rejection order passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, which refused to approve the appointment of Petitioner No.3 as Junior Clerk in the petitioner-managed school.

Relief Sought: The petitioners sought the quashing of the rejection order dated 28.10.2022 and approval of the appointment of Petitioner No.3, along with all consequential benefits and issuance of Shalarth ID.

Reason for Filing the Case: The appointment proposal was rejected on the grounds that the recruitment process was initiated without prior government permission and before the competent authority allocated the post per the revised staffing pattern and government resolutions.

Prior Decisions: The Education Officer rejected Proposal No.257 dated 21.09.2022, leading to the present writ petition.

Issues:

1. Whether the appointment of Petitioner No.3 was made following due process and government norms?

2. Whether the rejection order was sustainable in light of the sanctioned post and procedural compliance?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioners: Argued that the post was sanctioned and clear; despite seeking surplus staff information from the authority, no response was received, justifying their decision to proceed with recruitment.

2. Respondents: Contended that the recruitment process lacked prior government permission and violated established norms and government resolutions.