1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4900/2007 (Annabhau Sathe Shikshan Sanstha & two others vs., The State of Maharashtra & 4 others) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 29th September, 2008 Shri G.R.Sardar, Adv. for the petitioners. Smt. S.S.Wandile, A.G.P. for R-1 to R-4 Shri P.S.Patil, Adv. for R-5. 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division, Amravati, on 2.6.2006, by which the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 5 was allowed and it was held that the Petitioner No. 3 does not have the minimum educational qualification for being appointed as an Art Teacher in the School for Handicapped and the Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, was directed to grant approval to the appointment of Respondent No.5. 2 2. The petitioner no.1 is a society, running the petitioner no. 2 School for mentally retarded children under the supervision of Respondent No. 4 – The District Social Welfare Officer, Amravati. The petitioner No.3 and the Respondent No. 5 were appointed on the posts of Art/Craft Teacher in petitioner no. 2 School on temporary basis. Ultimately, the Commissioner of Handicapped Welfare, Pune, approved only one post of Art/Craft Teacher in the petitioner no. 2 - School. It is the case of the petitioners that since only one post of Art/Craft Teacher was sanctioned, the petitioner no.3 was retained as Art/Craft Teacher and Respondent no. 5 was to be accommodated on some other suitable post in the petitioner no. 2 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 had sent the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner no. 3 on the post of Art/Craft Teacher in petitioner no. 2 - School. The respondent no.5 challenged the said action of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division, 3 Amravati, in an appeal. The appeal under the provisions of Rule 86 of the Special Handicapped School/ Workshop Code was decided by the Respondent no. 3 by the impugned order dated 2.6.2007. The said order is challenged in the instant petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner no.3 was not duly qualified to hold the post of Art/Craft Teacher in the petitioner no. 2 school. Though the petitioners had produced a document on record to show that the certificate produced by respondent no.5 before the respondent no. 3 was a fake document, on inquiry, the respondent no. 3 found that the same was a genuine document and that the respondent no. 5 had actually undergone the “Tailoring & Cutting Course”. The Respondent No. 3 found that respondent no. 5 had actually completed the Tailoring & Cutting Course from 'Sanskar Vahini Gram Vikas Shikshan Sanstha' in the year 4 1994-95. Considering the documents on record, the respondent no. 3 held that the petitioner no. 3 did not have the educational qualification as prescribed under Section 43(4) of the Handicapped School Code, 1990, for being appointed as Art/Craft Teacher and the respondent no. 5 was duly qualified to hold the post. By the impugned order, the respondent no.3, therefore, directed the Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, to grant approval to the appointment of respondent no. 5 instead of petitioner no. 3. 4. No case has been made out for interference with the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 - Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division, Amravati, on 2.6.2006, in this petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit