1. Introduction and Relief Sought

• Paras 1-3:
  The Petitioner challenges the order dated 20th October 2024 by Respondent No. 3, refusing approval for his appointment as a Laboratory Assistant. Relief sought includes quashing of the impugned order and directives to regularize the appointment and provide consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the Case

• Paras 4-7:
  • Background:
    • Petitioner appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 11th July 2012 in Respondent No. 5 (aided school) after due selection process.
    • Respondents No. 4 and 5 initiated recruitment after confirming the absence of surplus employees.
    • The selection was based on an advertisement published in the newspaper "Sakal."
  • Subsequent Developments:
    • Proposal for approval rejected by Respondent No. 3 for procedural non-compliance.
    • Earlier rejection (April 2022) quashed by the High Court with directions for reconsideration, which were not complied with until contempt proceedings were initiated.

3. Grounds for Rejection of Approval

• Para 5:
  The impugned order cited the following reasons:
  • Lack of prior permission as per GR dated 6/2/2012.
  • Advertisement not published in two newspapers.
  • Appointment made without addressing the backlog for reserved categories.

4. Petitioner's Submissions

• Paras 8-9:
  • The requirement for prior permission under GR dated 6/2/2012 is not mandatory.
  • The advertisement was published in a widely circulated newspaper ("Sakal").
  • The appointment followed due process, and the Petitioner has served for over 10 years uninterrupted.

5. Court's Observations

• Paras 10-14:
  • On Procedural Compliance:
    • The advertisement in "Sakal" was sufficient, as later government resolutions acknowledged its wide circulation.
    • Non-publication in two newspapers was a minor irregularity attributable to Respondents No. 4 and 5, not affecting the validity of the appointment.
  • On Reserved Backlog:
    • The reserved backlog issue does not invalidate the open-category appointment.
  • On Continuous Service:
    • The Petitioner’s uninterrupted service since 2012 warrants protection from prejudice caused by procedural lapses.

6. Decision

• Paras 15-18:
  • Order:
    • The rejection of approval is quashed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to approve the appointment within 30 days.
    • Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on Respondents No. 4 and 5, payable to the Kirtikar Law Library.
    • Petitioner's details to be entered into the Shalarth system, and consequential benefits are to be granted.
  • Clarification:
    • The school must address reserved category backlog in future appointments.

Key Legal Points

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Government Resolutions:
  • GR dated 6/2/2012 (procedural requirements for recruitment in aided schools).
  • GR dated 10/6/2022 (recognition of "Sakal" as widely circulated).

Ratio Decidendi

• Procedural irregularities in advertisement publication do not vitiate appointments when the process substantially complies with the law, especially when the candidate has served uninterruptedly for a significant period.

Subjects:

Service Law, Education, Recruitment in Aided Schools

Writ Petition, Appointment Approval, Reserved Backlog, Procedural Irregularity, Shalarth System.