Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. With respect to the submission dated 14th January, 2019 made on behalf of Petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 5 th November, 2018, it is submitted that the deficiencies have not been actually removed and in fact letter dated 14 th January, 2019 has never been submitted to the office of the 2nd Respondent as there are no outward or inward numbers or stamps or seal/signature indicating receipt of such letter.

11. It is submitted that the reasons including Reasons No. 1 and 2 mentioned in the impugned order are proper and in accordance with the Government Rules. It is submitted that one teacher from SC category and one from ST category is a must and the backlog needs to be filled on a priority basis and, therefore, the vacancy cannot be earmarked to open category. It is submitted that the State Government has not issued any orders to the effect that inspite of the backlog of backward class categories, the vacancy can be filled in from open category, if post is available for open category.

12. The learned AGP submits that therefore due to the existence of backlog, it is necessary on the part of Petitioner No.1 to first fill in the Mugdha 12 of 25 13 Judgment-WP 4097-19.odt backlog from the SC and ST category and for that a duly verified Roster, certified by the BC Cell, Navi Mumbai is essential. The learned AGP relies upon the affidavit-in-reply and submits that therefore Petitioner No.2 cannot be granted any aid in the absence of approval from the Department as clearly no approval can be granted to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 in the circumstances of the case as set out in the affidavit. It is submitted that the entire liability to pay Petitioner No.1 is upon Petitioner No.2 and not on the Government.

20. This Court has held in Paragraph 10 of the said order that the Deputy Director of Education has been directed in a number of cases not to refuse grant of approval only on the ground that the backlog of reserved category candidates was not filled in. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the said decision are usefully quoted as under :-

"10 This Court in number of cases had directed the Deputy Director of Education not to refuse to grant approval only on the ground that the backlog of reserved category candidates was not filled in. This Court in the following cases gave the said direction :-

23. A review of the communication dated 6 th March, 2010 from the Joint Secretary of Respondent No.1 to the Director Education, (Secondary and Higher Secondary) relied upon by the Petitioners also lends credence to the aforesaid views when it says in Paragraphs 3 and 4 Mugdha 19 of 25 20 Judgment-WP 4097-19.odt that the State Government has expressed its no objection to fill in the open category vacancy from the open category, even if there is a backlog in the reserved category. The said communication also refers to the order of this Court dated 23rd September, 2005 in Writ Petition No.5789 of 2005 in the case of Hemant Shankar Kulkarni & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. wherein this Court has held that even if there is a backlog in the reserved category, open category vacant posts can be filled in from the open category.