Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Swati Shivaji Lawhare, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28th December 2017 passed by the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, Aurangabad (respondent no.3), which rejected the proposal dated 20th June 2014 submitted by respondent nos.5 and 6 for according approval to the post of the petitioner as a Cook. The petitioner was employed as a Cook at Sane Guruji Residential Secondary School, Kaij, District Beed, which initially had classes from 1st to 7th standard. Permission for 8th standard was granted from the academic year 2012-2013 vide resolutions dated 2nd August 2008 and 28th August 2012. By Government Resolution dated 14th February 2006, one post of Cook was sanctioned, and by corrigendum dated 24th March 2006, the post was modified to include 9th standard as well. The resolution also provided that one post of Cook was admissible for every forty students. Thus, since 14th February 2006 and the corrigendum dated 24th March 2006, there were two sanctioned posts of Cook. For filling up the second post of Cook, the school management appointed the petitioner and submitted a proposal for approval on 20th June 2014. However, respondent no.3 rejected the proposal by order dated 28th December 2017 on the ground that the post of Cook was not sanctioned. The petitioner contended that the post was already sanctioned by the Government Resolution and corrigendum, and the rejection was perverse. The respondents argued that the post was not sanctioned and the rejection was justified. The court examined the Government Resolution dated 14th February 2006 and corrigendum dated 24th March 2006 and found that the post of Cook was indeed sanctioned. The court held that the impugned order was perverse and without jurisdiction, as the authority had no basis to reject the approval when the post was already sanctioned. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 28th December 2017, and directed respondent no.3 to grant approval to the post of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order. Rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Approval of Post - Sanctioned Post - The petitioner challenged the order rejecting approval for the post of Cook on the ground that the post was not sanctioned. The court held that the post was already sanctioned by Government Resolution dated 14/02/2006 and corrigendum dated 24/03/2006, and the authority's order was perverse and without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition and directed the authority to grant approval within four weeks. (Paras 2-7) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Perverse Order - The court held that when an order is perverse and without jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of approval for the post of Cook by the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, was justified when the post was already sanctioned by Government Resolution dated 14/02/2006 and corrigendum dated 24/03/2006.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28/12/2017 passed by respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 is directed to grant approval to the post of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Approval of post cannot be rejected on ground of non-sanction when post is already sanctioned by Government Resolution
- Government Resolution dated 14/02/2006 and corrigendum dated 24/03/2006 create sanctioned posts
- Writ Court can interfere when order is perverse and without jurisdiction
