Bombay High Court
Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Babu vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 January, 2026
Ethape (1) 913-WP-13843-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
913 WRIT PETITION NO. 13843 OF 2018
Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Babu
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY 2026. PC :- 1. Heard the parties for some time.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was duly appointed and his services were approved. Subsequently, the learned Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Nanded, cancelled the approval stating that when the petitioner was appointed, there was a backlog of one SC category person and post was vacant.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that, in fact, the roster was verified prior to grant of approval to the petitioner Ethape (2) 913-WP-13843-2018 and no backlog was shown.
4. The learned AGP, from the affidavit, however, points out that when the petitioner was appointed, an advertisement was issued. The said advertisement was issued without taking prior sanction/permission from the authority, and it is for this reason, the approval was rejected. He points it out from his affidavit-in-reply in paragraph No.4 wherein specific statement is made. The relevant portion in the affidavit in reply reads as under:-
"4. I say and submit that, at this time Representative of Education Officer (Secondary), Nanded, Head Master of the school namely Mr. Suryavanshi K. J. and petitioner Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Babu were remain present before the office. The said post of junior clerk become vacant on account of retirement of Sau. Dongrikar on 31.03.2010. For filing said vacant post, the appointment order dated 10.07.2013 seems to have given to the petitioner as a junior clerk. The petitioner is from OPEN category. It seem that, no permission was sought by the Management of Education Society, Naygao (B) for advertising the said post. However, from the record its seem that Advertise publish in "Daily Sanj" dated 16.6.2013 to fill the post of junior clerk from open category. The interviews were conducted on 8.7.2013. It is specifically submitted that, the Management/institution has got the roster certified by B. C. Cell on 07.07.2010. As per the said roster there was backlog of one posts from SC category. The appointment of petitioner was given for three years as Junior clerk from 10.07.2013. The proposal for individual approval was sent to Education Officer (Secondary) & Education Officer (Secondary) seems to have been granted initial approval on 26.12.2013 and granted continuity in service vide order dated 26.07.2016."
5. It is further asserted in the affidavit-in-reply that there was a backlog as there was one post of SC category person vacant.
Ethape (3) 913-WP-13843-2018 This Court finds that when in the affidavit, it is stated by the Deputy Director himself that the advertisement was issued without prior sanction, it is not explained as to why the same was not mentioned in the order cancelling the approval. Though he asserts about the backlog, this Court finds that there is material to show that one Mr. R. K. Kadam was already appointed to the post of Junior Clerk, who happens to be a person belonging to SC category.
6. This Court finds that while considering the cancellation of approval, the Deputy Director could have very well observed the aspect of advertisement. In the order, he did not mention the same. However, in the affidavit now for the first time, it is brought on record that the advertisement was issued without prior sanction, and therefore, petitioners appointment was not legal.
7. Considering that, stand over to 13.02.2026.
8. The learned Deputy Director, Education to file affidavit clarifying the above position without fail.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]