JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned AGP for the State. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of Counsel. 2. The subject matter of challenge in these six petitions is an order (passed on similar lines in each of these six cases) by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, on 27 December 2016, declining to approve the appointments of five teachers as Shikshan Sevaks and one Librarian concerned in these petitions. 3. These teachers and Librarian were appointed in the second Petitioner Education Institution, which is running a Government recognized and aided private secondary school. Three of these teachers, namely, the first Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1313 of 2017, 1314 of 2017 and 1319 of 2017, were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in reserved posts, whereas two teachers, namely, the first Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1312 of 2017 and 1315 of 2017, were appointed in open categories. The Librarian, who is the first Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1316 of 2017, was appointed in open category. It is also important to note that three teachers out of these appointees were appointed for the subjects of either Maths or English. It is not in dispute that before the appointments were made by the second Petitioner Education Institute, the second Petitioner had informed the Education Officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur, about vacant posts in the particular categories, seeking the latter's permission for appointment. The first of such communications (informing about vacant posts of two Shikshan Sevaks in OBC and ST category and one Librarian) is to be found as of 2 April 2011. The communication elicited no response. The second communication was of 2 June 2012, where the second Petitioner Institute communicated vacancies in respect of all six posts, namely, five of Shikshan Sevaks and one of Librarian. After even this communication elicited no response from the Education Department, the Institute initiated the process of filling of these vacancies. It called for candidates from Employment and Self Employment Guidance Center, Solapur, in accordance with the applicable procedure. It also issued advertisements in local newspapers calling for applications for the vacant posts indicating the subjects and categories of reservation for each of the posts. After receipt of applications, the second Petitioner conducted interviews and made selection of candidates for all six vacant posts. It also issued advertisements in local newspapers calling for applications for the vacant posts indicating the subjects and categories of reservation for each of the posts. After receipt of applications, the second Petitioner conducted interviews and made selection of candidates for all six vacant posts. A resolution concerning these appointments was duly passed by the management committee of the School and after following of this procedure, appointment letters were duly issued to the concerned teachers/Librarian. The teachers and the Librarian have duly completed their probationary periods and are now due to be appointed and recognized as Assistant Teachers and Librarian, respectively. In the meantime, the school wrote to the Education Officer for approval to their appointments. By his communication dated 6 April 2013, the Education Officer (Secondary) of Zilla Parishad, Solapur, rejected the applications for approval, purportedly on the ground that the school was asked to appoint one Dinesh Rambhau Bansode, a resident of Barshi, on compassionate grounds by the department but that no action was taken on the requisition. The Education Officer, in the premises, took a stand that unless Bansode was accommodated on compassionate grounds, no new approvals to teachers would be granted. This order of the Education Officer was challenged by the Petitioners herein before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 20 April 2015, accepted the Petitioners' case that the reasons for return of applications for approval were incorrect and not based on provisions of law. The Court was of the view that the management and the teachers should not have to suffer because of non-approval of their posts. The impugned order of the Education Officer dated 6 April 2013 was accordingly quashed and set aside; the Petitioners were permitted to file fresh applications within two weeks; and the Respondents were directed to consider the same as early as possible and preferably within eight weeks. The impugned order of the Education Officer dated 6 April 2013 was accordingly quashed and set aside; the Petitioners were permitted to file fresh applications within two weeks; and the Respondents were directed to consider the same as early as possible and preferably within eight weeks. More than one and a half years after this order, the Education Officer, by his impugned order dated 27 December 2016, passed separately but on the same lines in case of each of these teachers and librarian, declined to accord his approval on the ground that the appointments were in breach of the Government Resolution of 2 May 2012, which inter alia requires private and local authority schools not to appoint any new teaching or non-teaching staff without absorption of 100% surplus teachers and staff in the district. 4. In this case, what strikes one directly, and what cannot be lost sight of, is that this Education Officer had originally rejected the Petitioners' application for approval on the ground that till the proposal of the department to accommodate Dinesh Rambhau Bansode on compassionate grounds was followed up by the management, no new proposal of appointment of teachers could be approved. It is only when that order was set aside by the Division Bench of our Court that the Education Officer has now come up with the impugned order. The Education Officer was directed to dispose of the applications for approval within eight weeks of the applicants preferring fresh applications. The applications were made on 30 April 2015 and yet for a period of over one and a half years, the Education Officer sat tight on these applications and did not issue any order. It is only after the Petitioners threatened to resort to the contempt jurisdiction of this Court that the impugned orders appear to have been passed. This approach of the Education Officer leaves much to be desired. This, in addition to unexplained approvals in a number of similarly placed cases despite the ban as listed out by the Petitioners, prompts one to question the bonafides of the impugned action. 5. Even otherwise, the impugned orders of the Education Officer cannot pass muster for various reasons. This approach of the Education Officer leaves much to be desired. This, in addition to unexplained approvals in a number of similarly placed cases despite the ban as listed out by the Petitioners, prompts one to question the bonafides of the impugned action. 5. Even otherwise, the impugned orders of the Education Officer cannot pass muster for various reasons. In the first place, in case of each of these six vacancies, the school management had communicated to the Education Officer about the existence of the vacancies in the school and seeking his permission to fill-in the posts. The Education Officer, despite receipt of these communications, neither replied to the same nor forwarded names of any surplus teachers to be appointed to any of these six posts. The management, therefore, was constrained to commence the process of appointment and appoint teachers and librarian. Candidates responded to the advertisement issued and were selected and appointed after following due process of law. No fault could be found in such appointments. Aurangabad Bench of this Court, by its order dated 17 October 2016, in the case of Anant Kamlakar Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P.4232-16 dated 17 October 2016, Aurangabad Bench, was concerned with similar appointments. The Division Bench noted that the management in the particular case had sought permission to fill-in vacant posts and even issued reminders to the Education Officer, in response to which there was neither reply nor direction from the Education Officer for absorption of any surplus candidates; the candidates were appointed by the management upon inaction of the Education Officer and after issuing advertisements and following proper selection process; the teachers so appointed could not be denied approval on the ground that no recruitment was permissible without 100% absorption of surplus teachers. This Court was of the view that in a case like this, the applicant teachers responded to the advertisement, and after due process of law, were selected and appointed. This whole process was adopted only after due communication was addressed by the management to the Education Department seeking the latter's approval. The Court was of the view that it was not the case of the Respondent State that at any point of time they had asked the school management to absorb any surplus teacher. This whole process was adopted only after due communication was addressed by the management to the Education Department seeking the latter's approval. The Court was of the view that it was not the case of the Respondent State that at any point of time they had asked the school management to absorb any surplus teacher. The Court, in the premises, directed the Education Department to consider approval to the appointments of the petitioners before it as Assistant Teachers in accordance with law and not reject it on the ground of the ban on recruitment of fresh teachers contained in the G.R. of 2 May 2012. This judgment has since been followed in a number of judgments passed by our Court. 6. Apart from this fundamental challenge to the rejection of approval which applies across the board to all six appointees, there are special reasons in individual cases why the approval could not be denied to the individual appointees. The Maharashtra Government had simultaneously, i.e. around the time of the Government Resolution of 2 May 2012, issued another Government Resolution (G.R. dated 13 April 2011) for a special drive for clearing the backlog of reservations in accordance with its earlier G.R. of 29 November 2010. Not only this, but even after the G.R. of 2 May 2012, the State Government had issued another Government Resolution, i.e. G.R. of 21 August 2018, extending the time to appoint candidates from reserved category so as to fillin the backlog until 31 March 2014. A Division Bench of our Court in the case of Ashok s/o Nilkanth Dhale vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P.No.10580-15 dated 9 March 2017 held that if teachers were appointed in reserved categories, the ban imposed by G.R. dated 2 May 2012 would not apply. Another Division Bench of our Court, after following this judgment, in the case of Revati Kusha Wagh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016(5) Mh.L.J. 742 , held that the ban imposed by the G.R. would not apply to the appointments made in reserved categories after following due procedure of law. A number of writ petitions were disposed of on that footing. Another Division Bench of our Court, after following this judgment, in the case of Revati Kusha Wagh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016(5) Mh.L.J. 742 , held that the ban imposed by the G.R. would not apply to the appointments made in reserved categories after following due procedure of law. A number of writ petitions were disposed of on that footing. Finally, another Division Bench of our Court in the case of Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P.No.8587-16 dated 10 July 2017 issued clear directions to the effect that Education Officers in the State should examine individual cases and grant approval to teachers, in whose case appointments were made to fulfill the backlog of reserved category candidates and to take necessary steps for payment of salary to such teachers after such approval. It is not in dispute that at least three of these six candidates are from reserve categories, the first Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1313 of 2017 and 1319 of 2017 having been appointed in OBC category, and the first Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2017 in ST category. As held by our Court in several petitions noted above, these appointments being in reserve categories, the ban on recruitment under the G.R. of 2 May 2012 is not applicable in their case. 7. There is yet another reason why some of these appointees cannot be denied approval. The Maharashtra Government, in a separate G.R. (G.R. dated 4 September 2013), had specifically relaxed the ban on recruitment proposed by the G.R. of 2 May 2012 insofar as the subjects of English, Maths and Science were concerned. This was presumably so because of severe shortage of teachers of English, Maths and Science. Even this relaxation has been considered as superseding the ban on recruitment in the G.R. of 2 May 2012 by the Division Bench of our Court in Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa (supra). The Court specifically directed the Education Officers of the State not to deny approvals to teachers where appointments were made for filling up vacancies in the subjects of English, Maths and Science. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1313 of 2017, 1314 of 2017 and 1315 of 2017 are all teachers appointed for the subjects of either Maths or English. The Court specifically directed the Education Officers of the State not to deny approvals to teachers where appointments were made for filling up vacancies in the subjects of English, Maths and Science. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1313 of 2017, 1314 of 2017 and 1315 of 2017 are all teachers appointed for the subjects of either Maths or English. In the premises, in their case the ban on recruitment under the G.R. of 2 May 2012 would have to give way to the G.R. of 4 September 2013. 8. The learned AGP relies on Section 5(1) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”) and submits that under the proviso to Section 5(1) the management was duty-bound to ascertain from the Education Officer of the Zilla Parishad about availability of suitable persons from the list of surplus teachers maintained by him for absorption before proceeding to fill the vacancies. The learned AGP submits that the appointments purportedly made by the management without following the mandate of the proviso were bad in law and the approval was rightly declined by the Education Officer. There is no merit in this contention. The management in the present case did communicate the vacancies to the Education Officer and sought the latter's permission to fill up the same. That was not just once but by two separate communications with a gap of about two months. The Education Officer was expected to forward names of suitable persons from the list of surplus teachers maintained by him in response to these communications and if no surplus teacher was available for absorption, give a go-ahead to the management to appoint the teachers through regular appointment procedure. The Education Officer did not communicate his response either by communicating any names or by objecting to the appointments proposed. The school management is not expected to carry on with the vacancies, waiting indefinitely for the response of the Education Officer. Schools cannot function without teachers; and students cannot be deprived of education. The school management was, in the premises, within its rights to proceed to fill the vacancies. The school management is not expected to carry on with the vacancies, waiting indefinitely for the response of the Education Officer. Schools cannot function without teachers; and students cannot be deprived of education. The school management was, in the premises, within its rights to proceed to fill the vacancies. The construction of Section 5(1) suggested by the learned AGP, namely, that it is not sufficient for the management to communicate vacancies to Education Officer and seek his permission to appoint teachers, it must expressly ascertain availability of suitable surplus teachers from him, is too artificial and does not commend itself to this Court. MEPS Act is a piece of welfare or beneficial legislation seeking to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of teachers and other employees of schools. The object of the Act is to provide the teachers and other employees with security and stability of service to enable them to discharge their duties towards pupils and their guardians in particular, and the institution and the society in general, effectively and efficiently. Such welfare legislation must be construed liberally and broadly, so as to advance its object, and not strictly or narrowly. If any provision of it is capable of two constructions, that construction should be performed which fulfills the policy of the Act and is more beneficial for the persons in whose interest the Act is passed. The MEPS Act is primarily enacted in the interest of students, and for their sake, of teachers and institutions, and generally in the interest of the society. The construction suggested by the learned AGP has the effect of impeding, rather than advancing the cause of students and education. It would have the effect of depriving students of timely appointment of their teachers and the teachers of security and stability of service. 9. In the premises, the petition is disposed of in terms of the following order : (i) Rule is made absolute and the petitions are allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders; (ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to approve the appointments of the first Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1313 of 2017, 1314 of 2017 and 1319 of 2017, since these appointments are made in reserved posts and in case of Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1313 of 2017, 1314 of 2017 and 1319 of 2017, since these appointments are made in reserved posts and in case of Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1313 of 2017 and 1314 of 2017 also because the appointments are in the subject of Maths, if there is no other objection to their appointments; (iii) As for the first Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1315 of 2017, she being a teacher appointed for the subject of English, her appointment shall be approved as in the case of the appointees of reserved categories noted above, if there is no other objection to her appointment; (iv) As far as the first Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1312 of 2017 and 1316 of 2017 are concerned, the Education Officer shall consider their proposals afresh on their own merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that their proposals cannot be denied by reason of the alleged ban on recruitment under G.R. dated 2 May 2012. The Education Officer shall consider their case within a period of four weeks from today and grant approval if they are otherwise eligible for the same.