Reserved-category backlog alone cannot justify denying approval to an open-category appointee.

The Petitioner, qualified with a B.A., B.Ed., joined the respondent aided school as a Shikshan Sevak on 16 February 2012. She claimed to have completed three years of service on 16 February 2015 and to have thereafter continued as an Assistant Teacher.

The proposal seeking approval of her appointment was ultimately forwarded to the Education Inspector in December 2018, after a delay attributable to disputes within the school management and the alleged failure of the former Headmaster to forward the proposal.

The Education Inspector rejected approval by order dated 11 February 2019, principally on the grounds that the appointment documents were false, no workload was available, the proposal was belated, the former Headmaster had denied signing it, and the appointment disregarded reserved-category backlog.

The Petitioner challenged that order and, by amendment, also sought arrears/back wages from 16 February 2015.

The school management and the concerned trustee supported the Petitioner’s case, including her continuous service and the existence of workload.

1. Whether the Education Inspector was justified in rejecting approval of the Petitioner’s appointment as Shikshan Sevak/Assistant Teacher on the grounds recorded in the order dated 11 February 2019

2. Whether delayed submission of the approval proposal, allegedly caused by disputes within the management and the former Headmaster’s failure to forward it, could be used against the Petitioner

3. Whether the existence of a reserved-category backlog constituted a valid ground to deny approval to an appointment made from the open category

4. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to approval with effect from 16 February 2012 and payment of salary and arrears/back wages

The Court applied the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including the requirement concerning appointments and reservation roster under Rule 8(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

It held that an Education Officer’s decision rejecting approval must be supported by cogent reasons and material evidence; a finding unsupported by the record is perverse and liable to be quashed.

The Court further relied on Namita Narayan Jha v. Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1605, which establishes that the mere existence of a reserved-category backlog cannot, by itself, justify denial of approval to a candidate appointed in the open category.

The Court found no evidentiary basis for the Education Inspector’s conclusion that the Petitioner’s appointment documents were false, particularly since the school management and trustee supported the appointment and an appointment letter and management resolution were on record.

The finding that there was no workload was held perverse because the Petitioner and the respondents had produced substantial material demonstrating workload; the contrary statement relied upon by the Inspector had subsequently been clarified as inadvertent.

The delay in forwarding the proposal was attributable to internal management disputes and the former Headmaster’s failure to discharge his duty, and could not prejudice the employee who had continuously worked in the school.

The former Headmaster’s denial of having signed the proposal was insufficient to defeat the claim, especially because the later Headmaster had forwarded the proposal and the surrounding appointment documents supported the Petitioner’s case.

Finally, applying Namita Narayan Jha, the Court held that the reserved-category backlog was not a legally sustainable ground for rejecting approval of the Petitioner’s open-category appointment.

The State authorities were directed to process the proposal and grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment with effect from 16 February 2012.

The Petitioner’s salary and backlog wages were directed to be paid within eight weeks of the judgment.

The connected Interim Applications Nos. 16573 of 2022 and 9448 of 2025 were disposed of accordingly.