The petitioner, who had been appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on October 1, 2022, sought judicial intervention to challenge an order issued by the Education Officer on September 26, 2023. This order had refused to grant approval for his appointment, citing procedural violations related to a government resolution on recruitment processes.

The petitioner contended that he was fully qualified, possessing a Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) qualification and having successfully navigated the interview process, which was held just days after an advertisement was published in the Ratnagiri Times.

The primary grounds for the Education Officer's refusal were twofold: the failure to adhere to a mandated 15-day gap between the advertisement's publication and the interview, and a circular from May 2020 that restricted recruitment activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court found these reasons lacking in substance.

While acknowledging the procedural oversight, the court underscored that such lapses do not invalidate the appointment of a qualified candidate. The ruling emphasized that the management of the school must ensure compliance with recruitment protocols in future selections.

The court noted several critical points:

Qualified Candidate: The petitioner met all necessary qualifications for the position, as evidenced by his TET certification.

Advertisement Compliance: The advertisement was published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and although it was not in the designated daily, the court ruled that this did not undermine the legitimacy of the hiring process.

Subject Grouping: The assertion that the vacancy was only for a Social Science group was dismissed. Evidence presented by the petitioner confirmed that the position was indeed for Mathematics, aligning with the school's needs.

Procedural Lapse: The minor procedural oversight regarding the timing of the interview was deemed a management failure rather than a disqualification of the candidate.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and directing the relevant authorities to approve his appointment and ensure the disbursement of salary retroactively to the date of his initial appointment. This ruling not only reinforces the importance of adhering to recruitment guidelines but also highlights the necessity of supporting qualified educators in their pursuit of employment. This case serves as a reminder to educational institutions about the critical need for compliance with recruitment protocols, ensuring that deserving candidates are not unjustly sidelined due to administrative oversights.