Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddhi Santosh Chaulkar, was initially appointed by respondent No.1, Aryan Education Society, as a Junior Clerk in the unaided section of Teachers' Education College on 22nd October 1996. Upon the retirement of one Sahadev Mate on 30th June 2006, the petitioner was appointed on 1st July 2006 to the same post which fell vacant in the aided section. The management submitted a proposal for approval to respondent No.2, but it was initially rejected on the ground that the appointment was made without following the procedure of advertisement. Subsequently, the management issued an advertisement, and the petitioner applied and was selected after following due selection process. The proposal was again sent to respondent No.3, but it was rejected on the ground that the backlog of reservation was not fulfilled by respondent No.1, and therefore the petitioner, who was appointed against an open category post, could not be granted approval. There was a series of correspondence between respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, wherein respondent No.1 explained that since the number of non-teaching posts was 9 and already four posts were filled from reserved category, the fifth post could not be granted to a reserved category candidate. It was also submitted that merely because there was a backlog of reserved category candidates, the approval cannot be rejected to a candidate appointed against an open category post. In this background, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant approval to her appointment from 1st July 2006. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the rejection of approval on the ground of backlog of reserved category vacancies was arbitrary and directed the respondents to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment from 1st July 2006 with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment to Aided Post - Approval - Backlog of Reserved Category - The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in an aided post after following due selection process. The proposal for approval was rejected on the ground that the management had not fulfilled the backlog of reserved category vacancies. The court held that merely because there was a backlog of reserved category candidates, the approval cannot be rejected to a candidate who was appointed against an open category post. The court directed the respondents to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment from 1st July 2006 with all consequential benefits. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's appointment to an aided post of Junior Clerk can be denied approval on the ground that the management had not fulfilled the backlog of reserved category vacancies, even though the petitioner was appointed against an open category post.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment from 1st July 2006 with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Approval of appointment cannot be denied to a candidate appointed against an open category post merely because there is a backlog of reserved category vacancies
- Appointment to aided post after following due selection process must be approved
- Writ of mandamus can be issued to direct approval of appointment when rejection is arbitrary
