1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4531/2007 (Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal & anr. Vs. State of Mah. & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mrs. M.S. Jawalkar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Adv. for R- 1. CORAM :D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioners states that the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner no.2 is a senior most Assistant Teacher and is discharging the duties of In-charge Headmaster since 1996, however, the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster has been turned down by the Education Officer on the ground that there is no School Committee in existence, roster has 2 not been certified by the Backward Class Cell and there is a dispute in the management. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a School Committee which is already in existence and functioning in the School. Similarly, the petitioner- Management has already submitted the roster approved by the Backward Class Cell headed by the Collector, to the Education Officer and there is nothing on record in the form of direction or order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in order to demonstrate that there are disputes in the management. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the petitioner no.2 is the senior most Teacher and is discharging the duties of In-charge Headmaster. However, approval could not be granted for above referred reasons. Be that as it may. Since there is no reason for us to disbelieve the statement that the School 3 Committee is in existence as well as the management has submitted the roster approved by the Backward Class Cell. Similarly, there is no evidence placed before us in order to demonstrate that there is a dispute amongst the management and since it is not in dispute that the petitioner no.2 is the senior most Teacher, we are of the view that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Education Officer in the light of the above facts. We, therefore, direct the Education Officer to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval in the light of the above referred facts, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to mention that the claim of the petitioner is required to be decided by the Education Officer independently in the light of the above referred facts which are placed before us by the counsel for the petitioner and reflected in this order. With these directions, the 4 petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE RMP