Case Note & Summary
The case involved three writ petitions clubbed together for hearing. Two full-time instructors in vocational education—Kum. Sandhya K. Pandharpure and Ku. Mala Gawande—along with their employer, Shri Shivaji Education Society, challenged the refusal of the Director of Vocational Education & Training to grant permanent approval to their appointments. The appointments were made after advertisements in 1993 and 1994, and both employees were granted year-to-year approvals from their respective joining dates until the academic year 2000-2001. Thereafter, the approvals were denied because the employer had not filled the backlog of reserved category vacancies, a condition mentioned in the earlier approvals. Despite the denial, the department continued to grant full-time approvals to employees who were junior to the petitioners in the same open category. The employees had earlier filed writ petitions, which were disposed of with directions to decide the approval issue. When fresh refusals were issued, they filed the present writ petitions. During the hearing, it was also disclosed that an appeal filed by Kum. Sandhya was dismissed on 30.08.2013, and oral leave was granted to challenge that order. The employer separately filed a writ petition assailing the refusal order dated 11.07.2011. The core legal issues were whether the refusal to grant approval was arbitrary and violative of the right to equality, and whether employees could be penalised for the fault of the employer in not filling the backlog. The court found that the material on record clearly showed that juniors in the open category were granted full-time approval, some even retrospectively, while seniors like the petitioners were denied. The department's explanation that the appointments were beyond the permissible quota was not found convincing because it overlooked the grant of approval to juniors. The court held that the petitioners could not be blamed for the failure of the employer to fill the backlog or for the department's inaction. It noted that if the employer or department officials were at fault, the government could have taken action against them rather than penalising the innocent employees who had served for over twenty-four years. The court, therefore, directed the respondents to grant approval on a full-time basis from the respective dates when their immediate junior was granted such approval, with all consequential benefits, including pension for Ku. Mala who had retired on 31.05.2017. The exercise was to be completed within six months. The employer's writ petition was held not to require separate adjudication and was disposed of accordingly. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Arbitrary Denial to Seniors - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioners were appointed as full-time instructors after due advertisement and were granted year-to-year approvals initially. The Director of Vocational Education & Training refused permanent approval citing backlog of reserved vacancies, but granted it to junior employees in the same open category. The court held that such differential treatment is arbitrary and directed the respondents to grant approval on full-time basis from the dates when the immediate juniors received theirs, along with all consequential benefits (Paras 15-27, 27-29). B) Administrative Law - Penalising Employees - Fault of Employer or Department - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court observed that the employer failed to fill the backlog and the department had knowledge but took no action against the erring officials or the employer. The petitioners, having served for over two decades, could not be blamed for the prevailing situation. The court held that if the employer or department officers were at fault, appropriate action should have been taken against them, not against innocent employees (Paras 19-26). C) Practice and Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Oral Leave to Challenge Subsequent Order - During the hearing, the State produced an order dated 30.08.2013 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4241 of 2012 sought and was granted oral leave to amend the petition to challenge that order, which was not opposed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of approval to the petitioners while granting approval to juniors in the same category is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; whether employees can be penalized for the fault of the employer in not filling the backlog of reserved vacancies.
Final Decision
Writ petitions filed by employees (Kum. Sandhya and Ku. Mala) allowed. Respondents directed to grant approval on full-time basis from the respective dates when the immediate junior was granted such approval, with all consequential benefits, to be released within six months. Ku. Mala, having retired, also entitled to pensionary benefits. The employer's writ petition disposed of as not needing separate adjudication. No costs.
Law Points
- Arbitrariness in denial of approval to seniors when juniors granted approval violates right to equality
- employees cannot be penalized for employer's fault
- mandamus for granting approval on full-time basis from date junior received approval
- consequential benefits to be released
