Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including Sandeep Gautam Kamble (petitioner No.1) and the educational institutions (petitioners No.2 and 3), filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the communication dated 16 November 2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Deputy Director of Education) rejecting approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 as Laboratory Assistant. The petitioners also sought a direction to grant approval with effect from 2 August 2010 with consequential benefits. Petitioner No.1 was selected and appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 1 August 2010, with effect from 2 August 2010, in a vacant post reserved for Scheduled Caste category, following due procedure including advertisement. The management forwarded the proposal for approval, but respondent No.2 rejected it on 16 November 2017 on the ground that there was a ban on recruitment at the relevant time. The court considered whether the rejection was sustainable. The court noted that the appointment was made in a vacant post following due procedure and that the ground of ban on recruitment was not applicable. The court held that the rejection was not according to law and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned communication and directing respondent No.2 to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 with effect from 2 August 2010 with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Approval - Ban on Recruitment - The rejection of approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 as Laboratory Assistant on the ground of ban on recruitment was held unsustainable as the appointment was made in a vacant post following due procedure and the ban was not applicable. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 as Laboratory Assistant on the ground of ban on recruitment is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 16 November 2017 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 with effect from 2 August 2010 with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Approval of appointment cannot be denied on ground of ban on recruitment if appointment was made in vacant post following due procedure
- Appointment made in 2010 cannot be rejected in 2017 on ground of ban on recruitment
- Writ petition maintainable against rejection of approval
