SANJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with following substantive prayer:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 issued advertisement in Daily Mahasagar dated 28th May, 2014, for filling up the clear vacant and sanctioned post of Shikshan Sevak, reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. In response to the said advertisement, the Petitioner attended the interview on 7th June, 2014, along with other candidates, and after following due procedure, he came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak vide appointment order dated 10th June, 2014, on probation for three years w.e.f. 16th June, 2014 to 15th June, 2017. It is submitted that since the date of appointment, the Petitioner is in continuous service of Respondent No.4 school. The said appointment of the Petitioner is on clear vacant and sanctioned post of Shikshan Sevak reserved for Scheduled Caste Category and the name of the Petitioner also came to be included in the seniority list of teaching staff of Respondent No.4 school from the year 2014-15.