The petitioner challenged the order of the Education Officer, Ratnagiri, which denied approval of his appointment as a Shikshan Sevak. The Bombay High Court quashed the denial, holding that the technical lapses in the selection process (e.g., improper time gap in advertisements and non-publication in one specific newspaper) were not severe enough to invalidate his appointment. The court emphasized the petitioner’s qualifications and found no substantive issues with the selection process. Therefore, the court ordered that the appointment be approved and directed the government to release the petitioner’s salary from the date of his appointment.

1. Introduction:

• The petitioner, a qualified teacher, had applied for the position of Shikshan Sevak at New Bharat Urdu High School, Ratnagiri, and was appointed on October 1, 2022. However, the Education Officer refused to grant approval to his appointment based on technical objections, leading the petitioner to file this writ petition.

2. Relief Sought by the Petitioner:

• The petitioner sought two key reliefs:
  1. Quashing the order of the Education Officer dated September 26, 2023, which denied his appointment.
  2. Directing the Education Department to approve his appointment and release his salary along with all consequential benefits.

3. Objections by the Education Officer:

• The primary reasons for denying approval were:
  • Non-compliance with the 2012 Government Resolution, which required a 15-day gap between advertisement and interview.
  • A pandemic-related circular that halted recruitment processes.

4. Court’s Analysis on Time Gap in Advertisement:

• The court found the 15-day gap requirement to be vague and emphasized that the minor lapse of management in not adhering to this was insufficient to invalidate the petitioner’s appointment.

5. Issue of Newspaper Publication:

• The advertisement was published in Ratnagiri Times, but not in Daily Prahaar as per the guidelines. The court dismissed this objection, noting that Ratnagiri Times had sufficient circulation in the district.

6. Subject Grouping and Vacancy Dispute:

• The Education Officer claimed the vacancy was for Social Science, while the petitioner applied for Mathematics. The court reviewed the documents and determined that the vacancy was indeed for Mathematics, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

7. Court’s Final Decision:

• The court allowed the petition and directed the Education Officer to grant approval for the petitioner’s appointment from October 1, 2022, and release his salary.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Government Resolution dated February 6, 2012: Discussed in relation to the recruitment process and the requirement for a 15-day gap between advertisement and interview.
• Government Circular of May 5, 2020: Pertaining to halting recruitments during the pandemic.
• Government Resolution dated August 28, 2015: Referenced in relation to the grouping of subjects for recruitment in the 9th and 10th standards.

Ratio:

The judgment emphasizes that minor lapses in procedure, particularly when the management fails to follow certain technical rules (such as time gaps and publication in specific newspapers), should not invalidate an otherwise valid and qualified appointment. The rights of the qualified candidate should not be denied due to administrative oversights.

Subjects:

• Employment Law
• Education Law
• Administrative Law
• Shikshan Sevak
• Recruitment Process
• Government Resolution
• Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)
• Vacancy Approval