Approval and appointment status cannot be interchanged between separate selection processes to alter grant-in-aid eligibility.

The Respondent No. 4 (School Management) conducted two separate selection processes: one for an unreserved unaided post of Shikshan Sevak (June 2005) and another for a partially aided post reserved for VJNT category (July 2005).

Respondent No. 7 was appointed to the unaided post, and the Petitioner was appointed to the partially aided VJNT post.

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

On 03-03-2006, the Management requested to interchange their approvals, falsely claiming Respondent No. 7 was appointed to the aided post.

Without notice to the Petitioner, the Education Officer (Respondent No. 2) interchanged the approvals on 28-03-2006, effectively switching their appointment statuses.

During pendency, the Management terminated the Petitioner’s services due to "reduction of classes," which was later set aside by the School Tribunal.

The Management also filed WP No. 14300 of 2021 to challenge the Education Officer's reply affidavit in the main matter.

The Court applied the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules of 1981.

The core principle established is that an "approval" is a consequential result of a "valid appointment".

A valid appointment must correspond strictly to the terms, conditions, and reservations specified in the advertisement and the selection process.

The law mandates that approval is act-specific and individual; thus, an appointment cannot be segregated from its underlying selection parameters.

The Court found that the two selection processes were distinct, independent, and sequential.

Respondent No. 7 never participated in the selection process for the VJNT aided post, which only became vacant after her appointment to the unaided post.

The Education Officer failed to exercise due diligence or apply his mind to the fact that the interchange effectively appointed Respondent No. 7 to a post for which she never applied and which did not exist at the time of her recruitment.

The Court categorized the School Management’s request as "unjustifiable and intolerable," noting it was an attempt to protect the interest of Respondent No. 7 at the Petitioner's expense.

The Court rejected the defense of delay, stating that technicalities or estoppel cannot legalize "serious illegalities" that bypass mandatory statutory procedures for recruitment.

It held that approvals cannot be granted for posts not included in a candidate's selection procedure.

The Court quashed the interchange order dated 28-03-2006 and the communication dated 30-06-2017; restored the Petitioner’s status as an appointee on the partially aided VJNT post effective 15-07-2005, with all consequential benefits; directed recovery of salary grants wrongly paid to Respondent No. 7; and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 each on the School Management and the Zilla Parishad.