Deepak Narayanrao Gore And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 W.P.No.11784/17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.11784 OF 2017 Deepak S/o Narayanrao Gore and another.
...
Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
... Respondents.
...
Mr.V.P.Golewar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for the State Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.2. ...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.
Date : 19.12.2017.
PER COURT :
1.
The petitioners assail the order rejecting approval to their appointments.
2.
Mr.Golewar, learned counsel submits that petitioners belong to NTD and NTC category. They were appointed after following due selection
2 W.P.No.11784/17 process on 1.1.2015 and 11.2.2015. The learned counsel submits that ban on recruitment would not apply to fill in the backlog of reserved category. The learned counsel submits that even no surplus candidates were sent for absorption in all these years, still the approval is rejected on that ground.
3.
Mr.Panpatte, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Education Officer has considered all the aspects and has passed the order.
4.
In number of matters it has been held that ban on recruitment may not apply to appointment of reserved category candidates. The petitioners are appointed from NTD and NTC category.
5.
It appears that the institution had given application to the Management on 12.10.2014 for filling in the vacant post, so also another application on 3.11.2014 for filling in vacant post but no response is received by the Education
3 W.P.No.11784/17 Officer and after two months, the advertisement was issued.
6.
It is also stated by the Petitioners that for all these years, the Education Officer had never sent any surplus candidate to the Respondent-institution for absorption.
7.
Considering above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal submitted by the petitioners seeking approval to their appointment afresh expeditiously, preferably within four (4) months. The Education Officer shall not reject the application on the ground on which the impugned order was passed.
8.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(V.L.ACHLIYA,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp11784.17
4 W.P.No.11784/17
5 W.P.No.11784/17