pvr 1 WP7162-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7162 OF 2010 Shri.Mushtaq Ahmed Yasin Mulla. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.GP for Respondent nos.1&2. Mr.Mandar Limaye, for Respondent nos.3 & 4. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 7th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Education Officer declaring him as surplus and absorbing him in some other school. The grievance of the petitioner is that the declaration of the petitioner as surplus and his retrenchment from the school where he is presently working is contrary to the provisions of the Rules. pvr 2 WP7162-10 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. It is common ground that the management has not given any retrenchment notice to the petitioner. The management has not even moved for prior approval for giving retrenchment notice and without that the Education Officer made absorption order. The petitioner disputed the list on the basis of which the Education Officer has made the order. In our opinion, the order impugned in the petition has to be set aside because the provisions of Rules appears to have been followed only in their breach. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the petition is set aside. It is, however, clarified that this order will not come in the way of the management and the authorities to act in accordance with law. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)