Judgment:
Hardas P.V., J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this writ petition, may briefly be stated thus:
On 7.1.1991 the petitioner came to be appointed as a junior lecturer in the Savitribai Phule High School and Junior College at Nalgir, Dist-Latur. It appears that approval came to be granted to the petitioner on year to year basis but the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 12.6.1999 as the respondent refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the reasons which are not germane at this moment. Petitioner being aggrieved by this termination filed an appeal before the School Tribunal at Aurangabad. The School Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with full backwages. The petitioner consequently came to be reinstated. On the proposal of the management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner, approval came to be granted to the petitioner on his reinstatement, by order dated 29.10.2003. The approval was the permanent approval and for full time on the condition that the approval was being granted pursuant to the judgment and order of the School Tribunal. The approval, however, came to be granted from 28.7.2003 i.e. the date on which the petitioner came to be reinstated.
3. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the appointment of the petitioner had been approved on year to year basis by the respondents. The fact situation as it was existing at the time of termination of the petitioner, particularly, in respect of the workload, was existing even in October, 2003 when the approval came to be granted to the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the reinstatment and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the respondents have not granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his termination as the Tribunal has directed his reinstatment by quashing the order of termination. Mr. Marlapalle, learned Counsel for the management, on instructions states that the management would pay the backwages of the petitioner as ordered to be paid by the School Tribunal. Mr. Tambe, learned A.G.P. for the respondents states that on account of absence of adequate workload, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been granted from the date of his reinstatement and not from the date of his termination.
4. The fact situation as it existed at the time of termination of the petitioner also existed at the time when the approval came to be granted to the petitioner pursuant to his reinstatement. This aspect of the matter is not denied by the respondents. If that be the case, we see no reason whatsoever in not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his termination. Since reinstatment has been ordered by the School Tribunal by quashing the termination order, the petitioner is deemed to be in continuous service and, therefore, in the light of qualification which the petitioner was possessing the approval also need to be continuous. The management has already shouldered its responsibility to pay the backwages and, therefore, the state exchequer is not likely to be burdened for the payment of backwages in the event the approval is granted from the date of the termination of the petitioner.
5. In the light of that, therefore, this petition succeeds. This petition is allowed. It is directed that necessary orders be issued by the respondents for granting approval to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.6.1999 instead of granting approval w.e.f. 28.7.2003. Other conditions incorporated in the order of approval dated 29.10.2003 remain unaltered. We accept the statement of the respondent management that the entire burden of backwages would be born by the respondent management. Mr. Marlapalle, learned Counsel for the management submits that the management would not submit any proposal to the respondent authorities seeking reimbursement of the payment of the Dackwages to the petitioner.
8. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs.