Bombay High Court Considers Challenge to Deputy Director's Refusal to Grant Approval to Shikshan Sevak Appointment and Related Claim for Full-Time Lecturer Post. Selection Process and National Commission Recommendation Examined; Court Evaluates Whether Deputy Director Could Refuse Approval Based on SC Commission Directive Without Statutory Authority.

Dispute over appointment of Shikshan Sevak/Assistant Teacher in a college and approval by education authorities, with cross writ petitions challenging refusal to approve appointment and seeking permanent lecturer post.

In WP No.5283 of 2018, petitioner Miss Sadhana B. Bendbhar sought to quash the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 1 February 2018 and the intimation given by the Principal, and sought a declaration that she was selected after due procedure and entitled to continue as Shikshan Sevak. In WP No.12005 of 2019, petitioner Smt.Anuradha Raju Hegde sought directions to the University and College to approve her appointment as full-time Lecturer on permanent basis with effect from 4 June 2016 with full back wages and benefits, and to quash the appointment of Bendbhar as illegal.

Bendbhar was appointed as Shikshan Sevak after selection, but the Deputy Director of Education refused to grant approval based on a recommendation from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes favoring Hegde. Hegde claimed she was entitled to the permanent lecturer post and challenged Bendbhar's appointment.

The Deputy Director of Education passed an order dated 1 February 2018 refusing to grant approval to Bendbhar's appointment. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes made a recommendation dated 2 November 2016 to the Principal Secretary, Higher and Secondary Education, Government of Maharashtra to review Hegde's case for permanent vacancy of Full Time Lecturer (Geography) and to submit an Action Taken Report within one month. No prior court decisions are mentioned.

Whether the Deputy Director of Education could refuse approval to Bendbhar's appointment as Shikshan Sevak based solely on the National Commission's recommendation Whether Bendbhar's appointment was made after following the due selection procedure Whether Hegde is entitled to be appointed as full-time Lecturer on permanent basis with effect from 4 June 2016 with back wages Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had jurisdiction to recommend or direct appointment of Hegde Whether Bendbhar's appointment as full-time Lecturer in Geography should be quashed

For Bendbhar (Petitioner in WP 5283/2018): She secured highest marks (83/100); Hegde was not qualified and not called for interview; appointment was issued as per Selection Committee recommendation; Hegde filed complaint after appointment; Bendbhar was not a party to the complaint; National Commission has no jurisdiction to direct appointment; Deputy Director could not refuse approval. For State (AGP): Hegde filed complaint to National Commission alleging irregularity in Bendbhar's appointment; National Commission made recommendation to appoint Hegde; when asked, could not point out any provision binding the Deputy Director to such recommendation. For Hegde (Petitioner in WP 12005/2019): Could not point out any provision allowing National Commission to recommend or direct appointment on ground of reserved caste; sought approval to her appointment and quashing of Bendbhar's appointment.

Rule in both the writ petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, both the writ petitions are heard finally. The petitioner secured 83 marks out of 100 marks. Since the respondent no.5 was not qualified was not called for interview. When this Court enquired as to whether the Deputy Director of Education is bound by such recommendation and / direction from the National Commission to appoint the respondent no.5 or any other candidate, learned AGP could not point out any provision in that regard. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No.5283 of 2018 and for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12005 of 2019 also could not point out any provision which could be pressed into service by the National Commission to recommend or issue any such direction to the State Government or to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint the respondent no.5 on the ground that she belonged to reserved caste.

The Management advertised the post of Geography teacher (open category, M.A. B.Ed.) on 23 March 2016. Bendbhar and Hegde applied. Bendbhar secured 83/100 marks; Hegde was not called for interview. Selection Committee Report submitted by University on 26 May 2015 (discrepancy in year as per text). Bendbhar was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 30 June 2015. Hegde filed complaint to National Commission for Scheduled Castes on 11 May 2016. National Commission made recommendation on 2 November 2016 to Principal Secretary, Higher and Secondary Education, Government of Maharashtra, and directed Action Taken Report within one month. Deputy Director of Education passed order dated 1 February 2018 refusing approval to Bendbhar's appointment. Bendbhar filed WP No.5283 of 2018 challenging that order; Hegde filed WP No.12005 of 2019 seeking approval to her own appointment and quashing of Bendbhar's. The High Court issued Rule in both petitions and heard them finally on 25 October 2021.