Holding

The abrupt withdrawal of the approval was unlawful; the ban did not apply to the post, and the appellant’s appointment stands.

Summary

The appellant, an OBC candidate, was appointed as Junior Clerk in a government‑aided school after the Management obtained approval from the Education Officer. Seventeen months later the approval was withdrawn without hearing, on the ground that the appointment violated a Government Resolution dated 1 March 2000 which imposed a ban on recruitment for vacancies arising from retirement, resignation, etc. The appellant contended that the vacancy arose due to promotion and that the later Resolution of 29 June 2000 exempted posts reserved for backward classes from the ban, and that the withdrawal breached natural‑justice principles. The Supreme Court held that the ban did not apply to the post, the 29 June 2000 resolution clearly excluded such vacancies, and the authorities acted arbitrarily by cancelling the approval without reasons or a hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeals, restoring the appellant’s appointment.

Issues considered

The ban on recruitment imposed by the Government Resolution dated 1 March 2000 applied to vacancies arising from promotion?
Whether the Government Resolution dated 29 June 2000 exempted posts reserved for OBC/backward classes from the ban?
Whether the withdrawal of the approval without hearing violated principles of natural justice?
Whether the appointment of the appellant complied with reservation rules and was therefore valid?
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition and the review petition

Subjects

service lawappointment cancellationnatural justicereservationOBCgovernment resolutionban on recruitmentprocedural fairness

Judgment

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 421

... RAJENDRA A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2091-2092 of 2008)

MARCH 25, 2008
B
(S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)

Service Law:
Cancellation of appointment - Resolution dated March
1, .2000 imposing ban on appointment and dated June 29, c
2000 providing relaxation to certain category issued by
Government of Maharashtra - Appointment of Junior Clerk
against post reserved for OBC category - Canceling of, in
terms of Resolution dated March 1, 2000 - Correctness of -
Held: Appointment made after obtaining approval from D
'f authority-Authority withdrawing approval abruptly after a lapse
of 17 months - Such an action appears to be high handed
and is totally incorrect on the part of the authorities - From the
resolution dated 29.6.2000, it is clear that the post reserved
for backward classes would not have been covered by the E
Circular dated March 1, 2000 - The post advertised for the
said appointment meant for OBC category- Moreover, status
of the incumbent belonging to OBC not in challenge - The
post was filled up in accordance with the roaster point after
approval from the authorities - The order canceling the F
appointment was passed by the authorities without hearing the
... incumbent and without assigning any reasons thereof- Hence,
disapproved.
Appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk by the
respondent against the post reserved for OBC, after G
seeking approval from the competent authority. Later his
appointment was cancelled on the ground that it was not
. in accordance with the rules. Appellant made a
representation against the order of cancellation of the
421 H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A appointment but no response was received from ~
.
respondent No.2. He, therefore, filed a writ petition before
the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court
holding that the appointment in question was contrary to
the Government Resolution dated March 1, 2000, as the
B Government had imposed ban on the recruitment for the
posts which have fallen vacant due to retirement/
resignation/death of incumbent. The review petition was
also dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present
appeals.
c Appellant contended that High Court had failed to
take into account the true spirit of the Government
Resolution dated 1.3.2000 as also the subsequent
Government Resolution dated 29.6.2000; that firstly the
ban effected by the Government Resolution dated
D 1.3.2000 did not apply to the posts which were fallen
vacant due to promotion; that the ban related to the posts 1
which had fallen vacant on account of retirement,
voluntary retirement, resignation or death of an employee
but not on account of promotion; that the Resolution was
E not applicable to the reserved posts; and that the order
passed by the authorities was behind the back of the
appellant or the Management and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to him.
Respondent contended that the High Court had
F rightly dismissed the writ petition since the initial
appointment itself was in total derogation of the ban
»
created by Government Resolution dated 1.3.2000; that
though the Governmtmt had relaxed the condition for
recruitment of the vacant posts reserved for backward
G classes as also the posts reserved for the project affected
persons and the appointments on compassionate
grounds, the appellant was not appointed on a post meant
for the backward classes as it was clear from the ,.._

advertisement that even the persons from open category
H could have applied for the same; and that the question of
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 423

natural justice could not have been raised as the approval A
was erroneously granted by the second respondent and
the initial appointment itself was illegal or invalid.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The order impugned in the writ petition B
withdrawing the approval was passed abruptly and it
.... came as a bolt from the blue to the appellant. The said
approval was granted on 17.3.2001 which clearly shows
that the approval was granted for three persons, one of
them was promoted to the post of Chief Clerk w.e.f. c
1.11.2000, another person was promoted to the post of
Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2000 and the appellant who was
appointed on the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2001. The
communication clearly suggests that the approval was
granted to all the three w.e.f. 1.11.2001. On this basis it is
D
not clear as to how the second respondent all of a sudden
chose to withdraw the approval by its communication
dated 30.5.2002. It is really strange that it should have
dawned on the second respondent that the approval
granted earlier was wrongly given only after 17 months.
(Para - 11) [429-F, G; 430-A, B] E

1.2 It was not as if the appointment was made keeping
the second respondent in dark about it. The second
respondent was informed by the letter dated 7.2.2001
about the advertisement given as also the appointment F
made. Along with this communication dated 7.2.2001, the
Managing Committee had sent the proposal in the proper
form and the other papers regarding the whole selection
process starting from the advertisement to the list of
employees. This also included a copy of the roster which
G
would have given the complete idea to the second
respondent about the nature of the post as also the
.., __ manner in which the appellant came to be selected. In
pursuance of the above communication the approval
came to be granted by the second respondent by its order
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A dated 17.3.2000. Therefore, the action taken after about ~

17 months of withdrawing the approval appears to be high
handed. The only reason given in the co.mmunication
dated 30.5.2002 is that the appointment made on 17.3.2001
is unlawful and is completely against the settled position
8 of law and, therefore, it stood cancelled. This is a totally
incorrect action on the part of the authorities. No reasons
have been given in this order. Very strangely even the ...
subsequent letters sent on behalf of the appellant and the
Managing Committee of the school were also not replied
c to nor were the reasons informed. This Court totally
disapprove of this abrupt action and that too without
hearing the petitioner and further not giving the reasons
for the same. (Para - 11) [430-8, C, D, E, F, G]
2.1 A joint reading of the circulars dated 1.3.2000
D and 29.6.2000 leave this Court in no doubt that if the
posts were meant for the backward classes, it would y
not have been covered by the circular dated 1.3.2000.
(Para - 14) [432-C, D]
2.2 The plain reading of the advertisement issued for
E appointment for the post of Junior Clerks would convey
that both the open category as well as the OBC candidates
could have applied. It is clearly suggested that the post
was meant for OBC category. The words in the bracket
under letters "OBC" being "Open group" appear to be
F either an error or a printer's devil. Be that as it may, the
fact remains that the status of the appellant belonging to
the OBC is not, however, in challenge. (Para -15) [433-C, D]
2.3 If the post was not meant for the OBC category
there was no necessity on the part of the Managing
G
Committee to advertise the post as meant for OBC
category. The respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any

H
document before this Court suggesting that this post was
not meant in the roster for an OBC candidate. The copy
of the roster of the school was already submitted by the
......... -
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 425

School Management at the time of seeking of the approval A
and it was in the wake of that roster that the approval was
granted. (Para - 16) [434-0, E, F]
2.4 The stand taken by the respondent is as if two
posts were advertised and one post having been given
to a SC category, the second post would remain for the B
,..., open category. This is not the correct position as here
only one post was to be filled as per Roster Point. When
any post is to be filled up, it is filled up according to the
roster which roster is already prepared and approved by
; the Education Department. Therefore, every such post c
would go only by the roster and not by the weird
calculation shown on behalf of the Government. (Para -
17) [434-F, G; 435-A]
3. It cannot be forgotten that the post became
D
available basically on account of retirement of Chief Clerk
and, therefore, consequent promotions were effected.
Thus the post did not become available only because of
the promotions. However, since the action of abrupt
withdrawal has been disapproved, the appeal must
succeed. (Para - 18) [435-B, C] E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2091-2092 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2003 and
21. 7.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at F
Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2559 of 2002 and Review
Petition No. 5097 of 2003 in Writ Petition No. 2559 of 2002
respectively.
Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai and Venkateswara
G
Rao Anumolu for the Appellant.
Asha G. Nair (for V.N. Raghupathy) and. Sudha Gupta for

t~
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
)-

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.

A V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
"'
2. The judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the
writ petition filed by the appellant herein as also the subsequent
order dismissing the review petition are challenged in this
appeal.
B
3. Appellant herein came to be appointed by Leva
Education Union, Leva Boarding Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, hereinafter
called the 'Management' in Nandinibai Vamanrao Girls High
School, Jalgaon w.e.f. 1.1.2001 vide letter dated 30.12.2000.
c The appellant belongs to the 'Other Backward Class' (OBC)
category. He was a science graduate and had worked as a
clerk in a private bank. He applied to an advertisement issued
by respondent no. 3 dated 23.12.2000 inviting applications for
the post of Junior Clerk. Significantly, this post had become ~
,,,
vacant since the earlier employee working on this post was
D
promoted. That promotion was given due to the superannuation
y
of a Chief Clerk. With the result, Shri S.S. Gangapurkar was
promoted as a Chief Clerk and so also Shri V.B. Patil who was
the junior most employee was promoted as a Junior Clerk w.e.f.
1.11.2000. It was, therefore, that the post had fallen vacant. It
E was thus a clear vacancy. The advertisement clarified that the
post was reserved for the OBC category. Also, it was clearly
mentioned in the advertisement that the preference was given
to the candidates who were registered with the employment
exchange, Maharashtra. Accordingly, the interviews were held
F on 30.12.2000 and the appellant herein on the basis of his
experience in the clerical field and qualifications was selected
out of approximately 9 candidates who appeared for the
interview.
4. The appointment order came to be issued by the
G
respondent no. 4 School on 31.12.2000. The Management then
sent the proposal to the Education Officer for approval of the
appointment of the appelfant along with a resolution to that effect.
..-
This was done on 7.2.2001. The respondent no. 2, after
considering all the facts, accorded the approval to the
H
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 427

~
appointment of the appellant as a Junior Clerk on 17.3.2001. A
This approval was granted w.e.f. 1.11.2001. The approval letter
also suggests that this vacancy had fallen because of the
promotion of Shri Gangapurkar and Shri V.B. Patil. However,
the respondent No.2 again issued a letter dated 30.5.2002
stating that the appointment was not in accordance with the rules B
and hence the approval granted by the department was being
cancelled. Very significantly, before this abrupt cancellation, the
department did not give any hearing either to the petitioner or
to the management.

5. A representation was made against this letter by the c
appellant to the management. The respondent management
also personally approached and requested the department to
give details about the reasons for the abrupt action of
cancellation of the approval. The respondent No.4 also wrote a
letter dated 22.6.2002 to the Education Officer requesting to D
give details or reasons for the cancellation of appointment. The
respondent no.2, however, chose to keep mum. The appellant,
therefore, approached Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High
Court by way of a writ petition.
6. It is for the first time that before the High Court that a E
reply came to be filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein
they justified their order was an outcome of the Government
Circular No. V.G. T-1000/PK 13/2000/Finance Bill-19/Dt.26 1h
February, 1999 issued on 1st March, 2000.
F
7. Relying upon the aforementioned resolution dated
1.3.2000 whereby the Government had imposed ban on the
recruitment on the posts which have fallen vacant on account of
retirement, voluntary retirement, resignation or death of
incumbent, it was justified by the Government that the post on
G
which the petitioner was appointed and become vacant on
31.10.2000 on account of the retirement of one Shri A.P.
~ Mahajan, the then Chief Accountant working in the school and
therefore it was contrary to the Government Resolution. It was
on this ground alone that the writ petition was dismissed and
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A even the review petition was failed, as has been stated earlier
and that is how the appellant is before us.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
firstly urged that the judgment of the High Court was erroneous
inasmuch as the High Court had failed to take into account the
8 true spirit of the Government Resolution dated 1.3.2000 as also
the subsequent Government Resolution dated 29.6.2000. It was
urged before us that firstly the ban effected by the Government
Resolution dated 1.3.2000 did not apply to the posts which were
fallen vacant due to promotion. Relying on the language of the
C said Resolution, the learned counsel contended that the ban
related to the posts which had fallen vacant on account of
retirement, voluntary retirement, resignation or death of an
employee. It is tried to be suggested that the present post had
fallen vacant on account of promotion of Shri S.S. Gangapurkar
D to the post of Chief Clerk and the promotion of Shri V. B. Patil to
the post of Junior Clerk and that is how the post of Shri V.B.
Patil had fallen vacant. It was pointed out that this situation is
clear from the order passed by the Education Officer (Middle),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon dated 17.3.2001 wherefrom it was clear
E that Shri Gangapurkar was promoted as a Chief Clerk on
1.11.2000, Shri Patil who was already serving in the Institute
was also promoted from that date, while the appointment of
appellant was approved with effect from 1.11.2001. Secondly,
it was contended that this Resolution was not applicable to the
F reserved posts. For this the learned counsel relied on the
Government Resolution dated 29.6.2000 and more particularly
paragraph 7 thereof. Lastly it was contended that the order
passed by the Education Officer was behind the back of the
appellant or the Management and without giving any opportunity
G of hearing to them. It was contended that the abrupt withdrawal
of the approval could not have been ordered unless an
opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant as also the
President of the Managing Committee and the Headmistress ~
thereof through whom the proposal of approval was sent.
H 9. As against this the learned counsel appearing on behalf
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 429

of respondents 1 and 2 contended that the High Court had rightly A
dismissed the writ petition since the initial appointment itself
was in total derogation of the ban created by Government
Resolution dated 1.3.2000. It was reiterated that by the
subsequent Government Resolution dated 29.6.2000, though
the Government had relaxed the condition for recruitment of the B
vacant posts reserved for backward classes as also the posts
reserved for the project affected persons and the appointments
on compassionate grounds, the appellant was not appointed
on a post meant for the backward classes as it was clear from
the advertisement that even the persons from open category c
could have applied for the same. Learned counsel invited our
attention to the advertisement issued with regard to the post
and pointed out that in the advertisement itself it was clarified
that the persons belonging to the OBC or open could have
applied for the post. It was then reiterated that there were only
0
two posts sanctioned in the reserved category and one of them
was filled in by Pandit Budha Tayade, while the appellant was
working on the other post. It was, therefore, reiterated that since
the 50% reservation was already done by appointing Pandit
Bud ha Tayade from SC category, the remaining post was meant
only for the open category and it could not be said that it was E
reserved for the backward classes. Lastly it was contended that
the question of natural justice could not have been raised as the
approval was erroneously granted by the second respondent
and the initial appointment itself was illegal or invalid.
F
10. We have considered the contentions in the light of the
documents produced before us.
11. Taking the last point first, it was obvious that the order
impugned in the writ petition withdrawing the approval was
passed abruptly and it came as a bolt from the blue to the G
appellant. The said approval was granted on 17.3.2001 which
clearly shows that the approval was granted for three persons,
namely, Shri S.S. Gangapurkar, who was promoted to the post
of Chief Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2000, Shri V.B. Patil who was
promoted to the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2000 and the H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A appellant who was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f.
1.11.2001. The communication clearly suggests that the
approval was granted to all the three w.e.f. 1.11.2001. On this
basis it is not clear as to how the second respondent all of a
sudden chose to withdraw the approval by its communication
B dated 30.5.2002. It is really strange that it should have dawned
on the second respondent that the approval granted earlier was
wrongly given only after 17 months. It was not as if the
appointment was made keeping the second respondent in dark
about it. The second respondent was informed by the letter dated
c 7.2.2001 about the advertisement given as also the appointment
made. Along with this communication dated 7.2.2001, the ~
Managing Committee had sent the proposal in the proper form
and the other papers regarding the whole selection process
starting from the advertisement to the list of employees. This
al$o included a copy of the roster which would have given the
0
complete idea to the second respondent about the nature of
the post as also the manner in which the appellant came to be
selected. In pursuance of the above communication the approval
came to be granted by the second respondent by its order dated
17.3.2000. Therefore, the action taken after about 17 months
E on 30.5.2002 of withdrawing the approval appears to be high
handed. The only reason given in the communication dated
30.5.2002 is that the appointment made on 17.3.2001 is unlawful
and is completely against the settled position of law and,
therefore, it stood cancelled. In our opinion this is a totally
F inGorrect action on the part of the authorities. No reasons have
been given in this order. Very strangely even the subsequent ~
letters sent on behalf of the appellant and the Managing
Committee of the school were also not replied to nor were the
reasons informed. We totally disapprove of this abrupt action
G and that too without hearing the petitioner and further not giving
the reasons for the same.
12. It is, forthe first time, in the writ petition when the reply ~
aff1dav1t was filed by one Rawan S/o Shenphadu Shirsath,
H Deputy Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalgaon that the
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 431

)
reasons came to be informed. In this counter affidavit the said A
Deputy Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalgaon took the
position that the appointment initially made was in breach of
the circular dated 1.3.2002 and, therefore, the second
respondent to the writ petition had cancelled the said
approval. B
13. It is further reiterated in this counter affidavit that by the
subsequent Resolution dated 29.6.2000, the Government had
relaxed the condition for the recruitment of the vacant posts to
the extent of the backlog and the posts reserved for project
affected persons and the appointment on compassionate c
grounds. It was stated that the post of the appellant did not fall
under any of these categories. For this the reliance was placed
on the advertisement in which it was mentioned that the posts
were meant for OBC/open.
D
'r 14. There can be no doubt that by the circular dated
1.3.2000 a ban was created for filling up any vacancy which is
created after 1.3.2000 due to retirement, voluntary retirement,
resignation or geath. It is further provided in this circular that in
case of urgency for filling up of the posts, a proposal should be
E
submitted before the Review Committee consisting of as many
as five officers for its decision. It is then provided that if the
decision of the Review Committee is not acceptable, then the
further proposal should be submitted before the "Secretary
Committee" headed by the Chief Secretary. However, the next
Government Resolution dated 29.6.2000 which came on the F
--\ heels of the aforementioned circular dated 1.3.2000 very
specifically provides that the said circular dated 1.3.2000 would
stand relaxed andwould not apply to the posts for reducing the
backlog of the backward classes or if they were to be filled up
by the project affected persons or the persons whose G
appointment could be made on compassionate grounds. The
.--...,_....; relevant paragraph 7 of the circular dated 29.6.2000 is as
under:
"If the posts lies vacant due to the above mentioned reason
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

.,
A from 1.3.2000 and if such posts are to be filled up by way
of special recruitment campaign undertaken to reduce
the backlog of the backward classes or if it is to be filled
up on the principle of project affected or compassionate
grounds then in such case the order of 1. 3.2000 would not
B be applicable."
It further goes on to say that:
".. even if these posts lie vacant for the period of more than
6 months, still it won't get lapsed. Even if these posts are
c to be filled up for reducing the backlog of the backward
classes on the principle of project affected or
compassionate ground, then also it won't get lapsed."
A joint reading of these circulars dated 1.3.2000 and
29.6.2000 leave us in no doubt that ifthe posts were meant for
D the backward classes, it would not have been covered by the
circular dated 1.3.2000. 1

15. However, the contention of the respondent appears to
be that the present post was not meant for the backward classes
as the advertisement itself suggests that the persons belonging
E to OBC/open could have applied for the said post. Learned
counsel appearing for the Government invited our attention to
the advertisement. According to the learned counsel the
advertisement does suggest that the persons belonging to the
other backward classes/open could apply. It is obvious that there
F was something wrong with the advertisement particularly
because there could not have been a situation where both the
persons belonging to OBC as well as persons belonging to open
category could apply simultaneously. We do not think that is the
import of advertisement. The advertisement has been published
G in the following form:
"Junior clerks are required for Nandinibai Wamanrao Girls
School Jalgaon, middle school, managed by Leva ... ~

Education Union (Leave Boarding), Zilla Peth Jalgaon for
academic year 2000-2001.
H
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 433

S.No Post Education Qualification Category A

1. Junior Clerk Graduate, English, Marathi OBC
Typing Essential should be (Open Category)
computer trained

Preference· will be given to candidates registered in B
Employment Exchange, Maharashtra Government and
with Social Welfare Officer Class-I.

Therefore, willing candidates are to be present at 11.00
hrs. on 30.12.2000 at the following address with original
certificates of educational qualification and certificate of
c
experience."

We do not think that the plain reading of this advertisement
would convey that both the open category as well as the OBC
candidates could have applied. In our opinion it is clearly D
suggested that the post was meant for OBC category. The words
in the bracket under letters "OBC" being "Open group" appear
to be either an error or a printer's devil. Be that as it may, the
fact remains that the status of the appellant belonging to the
.. OBC is not, however, in challenge. E
16. However, when the matter came up before this Court,
counter affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2. We would
choose to reproduce the following portion of the counter affidavit
which is from internal page 2 of the counter:
F
"It is submitted that at the relevant time when appointment
of petitioner was made by the respondent society, there
were two posts sanctioned for the respondent school. For
these two posts:
1. Pandit Budha Tayade - SC G
2. Rajendra Vitthal Nemade - OBC (Petitioner)

·"" \
were working. This fact clearly shows that 50% reservation
was already filled by the respondent no.3 society by
appointing Shri Pandit Budha Tayade (from SC category). H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A Hence the remaining post is clearly for open category.
As the post is for open category there is total ban for
recruitment by Government Resolution dated 1.3.2000 and
29.6.2000. Hence this deponent had not made any false
or misleading statement before the Hon'ble High Court."
B
To say the least, we fail to follow anything relevant in this
stand. In the first place this position was not shown before the
High Court in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Government and the Education Department where the language
c of the advertisement alone was relied upon. The name of Pandit
Budha Tayade is nowhere to be found in the record. We have
already pointed out that the three approvals which were given
were for Shri S.S. Gangapurkar, Chief Clerk, Shri V.B. Patil,
Junior clerk and Shri R.V. Nemade, Junior Clerk. We fail to follow
wherefrom this additional name of Pandit Budha Tayade has
0
and can come. When the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Government was specifically asked this question, no light
could be thrown by her over this issue. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in rejecting that stand. This is apart from the fact that
if the post was not meant for the OBC category there was no
E necessity on the part of the Managing Committee to advertise
the post as meant for OBC category. The respondents 1 and 2
have not filed any document before us suggesting that this post
was not meant in the roster for an OBC candidate. The copy of
the roster of the school was already submitted by the School
F Management at the time of seeking of the approval and it was
in the wake of that roster that the approval was granted.
17. Again the stand taken is as if two posts were advertised
and one post having been given to a SC category, the second
G post would remain for the open category. This is not the correct
position as here only one post was to be filled as per Roster
Point. When any post is to be filled up, it is filled up according to
the roster which roster is already prepared and approved by ",,Ill
the Education Department. Therefore, every such post would
H go only by the roster and not by the weird calculation shown on
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 435

~· behalf of the Government. We have, therefore, no hesitation in A
rejecting the arguments on the part of the first and second
respondent. We also disapprove the action taken by the second
respondent in abruptly canceling the approval even without
hearing the appellant or, as the case may be, the Managing
Committee. B
18. We, however, do not accept the arguments that this
post had become available because of the promotion and,
therefore, was not covered by circular dated 1.3.2000. It cannot
be forgotten that the post became available basically on account
of retirement of Chief Clerk and, therefore, consequent C
promotions were effected. Thus the post did not become
available only because of the promotions. However, since we
have disapproved of the action of abrupt withdrawal, the appeal
must succeed.
D
19. In the result the appeals are allowed. We set aside the
order of the High Court and allow the writ petition. The counsel
fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- ·

S.K.S. Appeals allowed.
E