{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10280 OF 2010 Pandurang s/o Damu Mahajan Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for petitioner Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.L.V.Sangit, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22 nd November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the withdrawal of approval granted to him as Head Master vide order dated 18th September, 2010. 2 Respondent No.4 – Management has two schools. However, it appears that inadvertently, both the posts were filled from open category candidates and accordingly approval was granted to the petitioner by the Education Officer. However, subsequently, noticing that out of two posts, one will have to go to reserved category candidate, the approval, which was earlier granted, has been withdrawn by the impugned order. Hence present petition. {2} 3 Shri Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur & another Vs. Baldev s/o Fakira Ade and another, reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 882, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4 By the judgment cited supra, the Full Bench has held that the reservation would not be permissible when number of seats in a particular cadre are not such, which would provide a reserved post in accordance with the percentage prescribed for a particular category. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as amended, prescribe for 52% reservation. As such, out of two posts, one post can conveniently go to the reserved category. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment would not be applicable to the facts of this case. By the impugned order, the Respondent – Education Officer has corrected an irregularity which was committed earlier. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1028010