1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3685/2007 (Nitin Arvind Wankhede VERSUS State of Mah, thro. its Secretary & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for the R-1 to 3. Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, counsel for the R-4. Mr. C.A. Joshi, counsel for the R-5. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 7, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 09.08.2007 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldana, whereby the Principal/Head Master of the respondent no.5 School is informed that the approval dated 22.12.2005 granted to the post held by the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, came to be cancelled mainly on the ground that there is no workload available in the respondent no.5 School. Similarly, there are also other reasons mentioned in the said communication. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is requisite workload available in the respondent no.5 School, however, because of the conflict between the 2 management, appropriate proposal was not forwarded to the Education Officer which has resulted in issuance of the impugned order. Mrs. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader, has contended that the proposal regarding workload submitted in respect of respondent no.5 School shows that the petitioner was given only 5 classes for teaching in a week and as per the norms, the teacher must take minimum 18 classes, and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed. Mr. Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was not as per the norms and the procedure applicable in this regard, and therefore, the Education Officer, by the impugned communication, cancelled the earlier approval dated 22.12.2005 granted to the petitioner . Be that as it may. In the present case, the petitioner was given appointment as Shikshan Sewak by the order dated 27.09.2005. The Education Officer also granted approval to the post held by the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2005. In that view of the matter, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to make representation to the Education Officer, against 3 the impugned communication dated 09.08.2007 as well as 08.03.2006, within a period of two weeks from today. If such representation/ application is received, we direct the Education Officer to consider the issue afresh, particularly on the following points: a) Workload available in the said School. b) If the petitioner is otherwise qualified and eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher, and c) If, for some reason, the workload goes down below permissible limit, whether such teacher is required to be declared surplus under the Rules or any other action needs to be taken by the Education Department in such situation under the Rules. We direct the Management to place before the Education Officer all the relevant documents and to cooperate with the Education Officer. So far as the allegation of the petitioner regarding non payment of salary is concerned, the Education Officer should also consider this aspect and issue appropriate orders. We want the Education Officer to take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Till then, the 4 service of the petitioner need not be disturbed. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Steno copy is granted. JUDGE JUDGE APTE