Facts: The petitioner was appointed as a 'Shikshan Sevak' on 18-01-2012 against a sanctioned post that fell vacant due to the superannuation of the previous incumbent. The school management followed a transparent selection process, including publishing an advertisement in a daily newspaper on 11-01-2012, in which five candidates participated. Following her appointment, the school management submitted a proposal for approval to the Administrative Officer (Primary) on 26-03-2012. Over the next thirteen years, the Administrative Officer repeatedly returned the proposal, citing inconsistent and evolving objections such as ongoing muster inspections, student strength, and minor clerical deficiencies like missing seals or dates. Finally, in 2025, the authority raised seven new objections, including a claim that the management had not sought prior permission before publishing the recruitment advertisement.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) challenging the repeated return of her approval proposal and the final impugned order dated 27-02-2025.
Issue: Whether the repeated return of an approval proposal over thirteen years based on inconsistent, delayed, and newly 'invented' objections is legally sustainable, and whether the failure to seek prior permission for a recruitment advertisement is fatal to an appointment made after a fair selection process.
Holding: No, the conduct of the authority is highly objectionable and the grounds for rejection are unsustainable. The court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the authorities to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment retrospectively.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Administrative Officer adopted a casual and obstructive approach by "inventing" new reasons every time a previous query was complied with. It noted that the core requirement of law is to ensure a fair opportunity for the public to participate in selection, which was fulfilled by the 2012 advertisement. Since the objection regarding "prior permission" for the advertisement was raised for the first time in 2025, thirteen years after the initial proposal, it could not be held fatal to the appointment. The Court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner or management. Consequently, the delay and inconsistent objections by the Education Department were deemed arbitrary, necessitating judicial interference to protect the employee's rights.