Approval and appointment must strictly correspond to the specific post and selection process undertaken.

The Respondent No. 4 (School Management) conducted two distinct selection processes in 2005. The first resultantly appointed Respondent No. 7 (Manjusha Mule) on an unreserved, unaided post of Shikshan Sevak

Subsequently, a vacancy arose for a partially aided post reserved for the VJNT category due to a resignation

The Petitioner (Pratibha Darade) applied and was appointed to this aided VJNT post on 15-07-2005

Initial approvals were granted correctly by the Education Officer on 13-02-2006

However, on 03-03-2006, the School Management requested the Education Officer to interchange the approvals of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7

Without notice or reason, the Education Officer issued an order on 28-03-2006 interchanging their statuses, effectively moving the Petitioner to an unaided post and Respondent No. 7 to a partially aided post

The Petitioner challenged this interchange after years of follow-up and a subsequent termination (later set aside by the School Tribunal)

The School Management filed a separate petition (WP 14300/2021) to challenge the Education Officer's reply affidavit and avoid liability

The court primarily applied the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules of 1981, which govern the procedure for valid appointments and approvals

It emphasized the principle that an "approval" is an individual result of a valid appointment and cannot be segregated from the specific selection process, vacancy, and reservation status it corresponds to

The court further applied the doctrine that there is "no estoppel to law," meaning illegal administrative acts cannot be validated by the passage of time or the Petitioner’s temporary service under the illegal status

The court found the interchange "absolutely unexplainable, unjustifiable and intolerable"

It noted that Respondent No. 7 was appointed before the VJNT vacancy even existed and never participated in the second selection process

The Education Officer failed to exercise due diligence by disregarding the records of vacancy, reservation, and qualifications, effectively "quirkily moulding" the Law

The court rejected the Management's defense regarding subsequent grants or surplus status, holding that an approval must strictly correspond to the advertisement and selection procedure under which the candidate was hired

The Management's attempt to protect Respondent No. 7 at the cost of the Petitioner's legitimate rights was deemed mala fide

The second Writ Petition by the Management was characterized as a "farcical show" and a procedural "foreign" practice intended to evade liability

It quashed the interchange order dated 28-03-2006 and the communication dated 30-06-2017, restoring the original approvals

The Petitioner was held to be appointed to the partially aided VJNT post effective 15-07-2005, entitled to all seniority, salary dues, and consequential benefits

The Education Officer was directed to pay unpaid salary dues within four weeks

recover salary grants wrongly paid to Respondent No. 7

The court saddled the School Management and the Education Officer with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 each, to be paid to the Petitioner

ordered departmental action against the erring Education Officer