1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3933 OF 2010 Arun s/o Rajdhar Patil ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Miss Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 1st July, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as the regular Headmaster of respondent No.3 school. 2. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in- reply, they have annexed the document as Exhibit R-1, dated 29.5.2010, by which approval has been granted to the petitioner as the Headmaster w.e.f. 1st June 2010, 2 3. Miss Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that though the petitioner was seniormost teacher and ought to have been promoted as the Headmaster, the respondent/ management had appointed four other persons who were junior to the petitioner for the earlier period and the respondents had treated those persons as Officiating Headmaster. It is urged before us that the petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to be granted approval from the date the petitioner became the seniormost teacher in any event from the date i.e. 1.4.2010 when the proposal for seeking approval to the promotion/ appointment of the petitioner as the Headmaster was submitted to the Education Officer. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of persons who were junior to the petitioner as the Officiating Headmaster. Undisputedly also, the petitioner came to be appointed as the regular Headmaster by the management on 1.4.2010. The affidavit-in-reply at paragraph 3 discloses that one Shri Borse has been appointed as the Incharge Headmaster and he retired on 31.5.2010. The approval to the appointment of the petitioner as the Headmaster has been granted from 1st June 2010. As pointed out by us above, persons who were junior to the petitioner and who had been appointed as the Officiating Headmaster have not been joined as party to the petition. In the absence of that, and in the light of the fact that 3 Shri Borse has been appointed as Officiating Headmaster, who retired on 31.5.2010, the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f 1st June 2010 cannot be faulted. 5. We have heard Miss Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the respondents. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, we find that no case for interference is made out and consequently, this petition is summarily dismissed in respect of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been granted approval prior to 1st June 2010. Since approval has already been granted to the petitioner, the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition stands fully granted to the petitioner. Thus, no interference is called for. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp3933.10