Bombay High Court
Ajay Raghunath Kupatkar vs State Of Mah & 3 Others on 6 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp1522.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2004
Ajay Raghunath Kupatkar,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Chota Tajbag, Priya Apartments,
Nagpur. PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Director of Vocational Education
and Training, Regional Office, State
of Maharashtra, Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur.
3. Yeshwant Rural Education Society,
Wardha, through its Secretary,
Kelkarwadi, Wardha.
4. S.S.N.J. Mahavidyalaya, Deoli,
through its Principal, Deoli,
Distt. Wardha RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G.Kulkarni, counsel for Petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Tiwari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri J.S.Mokadam, counsel for Respondent nos. 3 and 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
th
DATE : 5 JULY, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT (P.C.)
1] This petition challenges the order dated
03.02.2004 passed by the Inspector, Vocational Education
2 wp1522.04.odt
and Training, Nagpur, refusing to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as Instructor/Assistant Teacher
in the MCVC course run by respondent No.3 on the ground
that there existed backlog of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribe, Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward
Class categories as on 30.12.2002. The petitioner being from
open category, the approval has been refused.
2] It is not in dispute that the petitioner was duly
qualified for being appointed as a full time teacher in MCVC
Course. The management asked for the permission of the
Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training to fill in
the post which became vacant as a result of resignation of
one Shri V.R.Ingle and that was granted by communication
dated 27.10.1998. The permission granted states that the
appointment should be made as per the roster point. The
management issued advertisement on 27.11.1999 inviting
applications for one post of full time Instructor from open
category. The petitioner was selected and appointed on the
post by an order dated 07.12.1999, which has not been
placed on record. On 04.10.2000, approval was granted by
the Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Director to the appointment
3 wp1522.04.odt
of the petitioner for a period of one session i.e. 1999-2000.
Thereafter also, the approval was continued on year to year
basis by separate orders dated 02.03.2001 and 05.10.2001.
The petitioner was thereafter issued an order of appointment
dated 17.06.2002 as full time Instructor with effect from the
said date until further orders.
3] It appears from the communication dated
23.09.2002 addressed by the Principal of the Junior College
run by the respondent No.3 to the Deputy Director of
Vocational Education and Training that there was a ban on
recruitment imposed on 17.06.2000 by the State
Government. The petitioner was continued in service, but
ultimately by an order dated 03.02.2004, the approval to the
appointment was refused on the ground of existence of
backlog of reserve category candidates as on 31.12.2003.
4] The appointment of the petitioner on 07.12.1999
was made after following due procedure and about his
eligibility and qualification, there is no dispute. The post on
which the petitioner was appointed fell vacant due to
resignation of the regular teacher Shri V.R.Ingle. After going
4 wp1522.04.odt
through the return filed by the respondent - Deputy Director
of Vocational Education and Training, we find that the
reliance is placed upon the backlog calculated as on
31.12.2003 as under;
Scheduled Caste .. 8
Scheduled Tribe .. 10
Vimukta Jatis (A) .. 3
Nomadic Tribe (B) .. 6
Nomadic Tribe (C ) .. 20
Nomadic Tribe (D) .. 12
Other Backward Class .. 28.
The total backlog is of 98 posts in total 543 posts. Obviously,
when there was a ban on recruitment with effect from
17.06.2000, the appointments could not have been permitted
to be made.
5] What was required to be shown by the
respondent No.2 - Deputy Director is that on the date of
appointment of the petitioner on 27.11.1999, there existed a
backlog of reserved category candidates. This exercise has
not been carried out and no material is placed on record in
support of the stand that there existed a backlog at the time
5 wp1522.04.odt
of appointment of the petitioner. Except this ground, there is
no other ground assigned for refusing to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner. The order impugned cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
6] Our attention is also invited to one letter dated
11.12.2002 issued by the Respondent No. 2 - Deputy
Director of Vocational Education and Training, addressed to
the Principal of the College to resubmit the proposal for grant
of approval to the appointment of the petitioner along with the
roster point approved by the Desk Officer, Backward Cell,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. Accordingly, it was furnished on
23.12.2002 showing the backlog of 2 posts in Nomadic Tribe
category and 1 post in Scheduled Tribe Category existing as
on 23.12.2002. It was informed by communication dated
23.12.2002 that 20 posts are still lying vacant and the steps
shall be taken to fill in the backlog. Accordingly, an
undertaking was also furnished on the same date.
7] By virtue of the interim order passed by this
Court, the services of the petitioner are protected and he is
working continuously on the post from the date of his
6 wp1522.04.odt
appointment on 07.12.1999. In the absence of any material
placed before us showing that any backlog existed of any
specific reserved category as on the date of appointment of
the petitioner, the order refusing to grant approval cannot be
sustained. It was permissible for the respondent No.2 -
Deputy Director insisting upon filling of any such backlog in
the vacancies to occur subsequently. The impugned order is,
therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
8] In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 03.02.2004 passed by the Respondent No.2 -
Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training is
hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 -
Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training is
directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner
as a regular candidate working on the post with effect from
17.06.2002.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
