Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Mohan Desai, was appointed as a Peon by the Ajara Mahal Shikshan Mandal in Vyankatrao High School and Junior College, Kolhapur, on 5th April 2007 in a clear vacancy. The management immediately sent a proposal to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur (Respondent No. 3) for approval of the appointment. As the proposal remained pending for a long time, the management submitted a further proposal on 27th February 2016. On 19th December 2016, Respondent No. 3 returned the proposal stating that no instructions were received. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region (Respondent No. 2) rejected the proposal on 8th November 2019, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and a direction to include his name in the Shalarth Pranali (salary grant-in-aid system) and to pay his salary and allowances from the date of appointment. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the appointment was made without prior permission and that the petitioner had not worked continuously. The court analyzed the facts and found that the appointment was in a clear vacancy, and therefore, prior permission was not required under the relevant rules. The court noted that the proposal was sent promptly by the management and the delay in processing was not attributable to the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be included in the Shalarth Pranali and to receive salary and allowances from the date of appointment. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to take necessary steps within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment in Clear Vacancy - Inclusion in Shalarth Pranali - The petitioner was appointed as Peon in a clear vacancy on 5th April 2007. The proposal for approval was sent immediately but remained pending. The Deputy Director rejected the proposal on 8th November 2019 on the ground that the appointment was made without prior permission. The court held that since the appointment was in a clear vacancy, prior permission was not required, and the delay in approval could not be attributed to the petitioner. The impugned order was quashed and the respondents were directed to include the petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali and pay salary and allowances from the date of appointment. (Paras 1-11) B) Service Law - Delay in Approval - Not Attributable to Employee - The court observed that the proposal for approval was sent by the management immediately after appointment and again in 2016. The Education Officer returned the proposal in 2016 citing no instructions. The Deputy Director rejected it in 2019. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the delay caused by the authorities. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the proposal for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali by the Deputy Director of Education was justified, given that the petitioner was appointed in a clear vacancy and the delay in approval was not attributable to him.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 8th November 2019 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to include the petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali and pay his salary and allowances from the date of appointment within four weeks.
Law Points
- Appointment in clear vacancy
- Delay in approval not attributable to employee
- Inclusion in Shalarth Pranali
- Right to salary and benefits
- Writ jurisdiction
