Facts: The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in a private school on 16th November 2013 against a post that was sanctioned as per the then-prevailing staffing pattern of 2005. He joined the service on 18th November 2013. Subsequently, the State Government issued a Government Resolution (GR) on 12th February 2015, which kept a previous 2013 staffing pattern in abeyance and imposed a ban on fresh appointments until new staffing patterns were finalized. New staffing patterns were eventually introduced in 2019 and 2020. Based on these subsequent developments, the Education Officer granted approval to the Petitioner's appointment on 9th August 2021, but made it effective only from 7th March 2019, thereby excluding the service period from 2013 to 2019.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filing a Writ Petition to challenge the Education Officer's order that restricted the effective date of his appointment approval.
Issue: Whether an appointment made against a sanctioned post in 2013, following the then-valid staffing pattern of 2005, can be denied approval for the period preceding 2019 based on a subsequent ban on appointments and changes in staffing patterns introduced in 2015 and 2019.
Holding: Yes, the petition is allowed. The Court held that the approval must be granted from the original date of appointment (18th November 2013), as the ban imposed in 2015 could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate or delay an appointment made legally in 2013.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that at the time of the Petitioner’s appointment in 2013, the staffing pattern of 2005 was the only operational policy holding the field. The GR dated 23rd October 2013, which sought to change the pattern, was kept in abeyance "ab initio" by the 2015 resolution due to widespread protests. Consequently, the 2013 resolution never effectively replaced the 2005 pattern during the relevant period. Relying on the precedent in "Vikas Shikshan Mandal Savarde vs. State of Maharashtra", the Court observed that a statute or Government Resolution is not retrospectively applicable unless expressly provided. Since the post was sanctioned and the appointment followed due process before the 2015 ban, the Education Officer had no legal basis to exclude the 2013–2019 period from the approval. The Court emphasized that schools cannot function without essential non-teaching staff and a rational mind must be applied when imposing such bans.