Appointment Approval Granted After Long Delay: Petition Allowed with Costs. 10 Years of Continuous Service Validates Appointment Despite Procedural Irregularities.

Case Note & Summary

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.