1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2009 (Zaheb Hussain Biabani & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 05, 2009. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. and Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration has ordered recovery under Section 11 of Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930. The said order of recovery was questioned by the petitioners by filing appeal under Section 13(1)(a) thereof before the District Judge, Chandrapur. The District Judge, Chandrapur, has by impugned judgment dated 18.04.2009 found that the appeal was not filed within limitation and there was no substance even on merits in it. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has contended that the employees were needed by Municipal Council and in view of admitted need, appointments were made in accordance with law. He has invited attention to the fact that when strength of students required 45 teachers and proposal for appointment of 45 teachers was 2 forwarded, only 41 teachers were sanctioned. He states that recovery is sought for salary paid even to these 41 sanctioned teachers. The learned counsel for respondents are disputing this position. They state that show cause notice was specific and it was in relation to 127 candidates appointed illegally i.e. for whom there were no posts or then who were not sponsored by Employment Exchange or other similar authority. With the assistance of all learned counsel I have perused the papers. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner shows that action was for appointment of 127 candidates as Peon, Chowkidar, Safai Kamgar, Assistant Teachers and Balwadi Teachers. The appointments are found to have been made illegally i.e. the posts were not approved or then the appointments have not been made by following normal procedure. The petitioners were given show cause notice and also an opportunity to show their innocence or non involvement. It is not the case of the petitioners that inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. At this stage, it is pointed out that there is a ground that procedure under Rule 10 was not followed. The petitioners were given an opportunity to meet the charges or allegations levelled against them and thereafter the findings have been recorded. The 3 petitioners have not shown that these 127 posts were sanctioned or then they have not also shown that before effecting recruitment, the requisition was sent to Employment Exchange or any public advertisement was issued and the open recruitment was done. It is to be noted that the findings reached by Regional Director of Municipal Administration are considered on merits by District Judge, though he found that appeal filed was beyond the period of limitation and could not have been entertained. The consideration of merits by learned District Judge is not shown to be either erroneous or perverse. In the petition, no material is produced to show that the charge levelled against the petitioners was either erroneous or misconceived. In the circumstances, I do not find that any case is made out warranting exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.