LPA 243/10 in WP 957/07 with CA 12221/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.243/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.957/2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12221/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Smt.A.N. Ansari, Advocate for appellants. Miss.Quazi Sadaf, Advocate h/f Shri Javed R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. Date: 31.01.2011 Learned counsel for the respective parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.957/2007 by which the petition has been allowed with direction to the appellants to reinstate respondent no.1 in service with back wages due from the date of termination LPA 243/10 in WP 957/07 with CA 12221/10 2 till the reinstatement and continuity of service. There is no dispute that respondent no.1 was appointed in 1992 as a Peon. It further appears that her appointment was made through the regular process of selection. She was appointed on the vacant post. The challenge in the present appeal is solely on the ground that the post on which respondent no.1 was appointed was not sanctioned by the Education Officer and, therefore, she was not entitled to continue on the said post. From the record, it reveals that temporary approval was given to the appointment of respondent no.1 till 2002 and since her appointment was not approved by the Education Officer for the year 2002-03, her services were terminated. Having considered over all facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge, relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in St.Ulai High School & another V/s Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh ( 2007 (1) Mh.L.J., 597 , has taken a view that grant LPA 243/10 in WP 957/07 with CA 12221/10 3 of approval by Education Officer is not a condition precedent to the valid order of appointment. It is further held that the requirement of approval, which relates to the disbursal of grant in aid is a matter between the management and the State and want of approval will not invalidate an order of appointment. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that if appointment is made by the management on the post, which is not approved, then the management is required to share the financial burden to pay the salary of the employee of the school. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application No.12221/2010 does not survive and disposed of as such. (R.M. Borde, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 31.01.2011 ndk/c3111112