1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2009 Satish Pundlik Zanke VERSUS State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Deptt. Of School Edu., Mumbai and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 29, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no.2-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana declaring the petitioner as surplus along with four other teachers, due to reduction of the sections in the school. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 as an Assistant Teacher and his appointment was approved by the order dated 01/1/1996. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been declared as a surplus teacher as there is workload available in the school, where the petitioner is 2 working. It is the case of the petitioner that only with a view to favour the respondent no.4, the petitioner was declared as a surplus teacher along with four others. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, it appears that there is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been declared as a surplus teacher and was declared as such with a view to favour the respondent no.4. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent no.2 that in view of the revised staff pattern for the relevant academic year, the subjects of Physical Education and Biology are compulsory and since, the respondent no.4 was appointed to teach Standard 8 to 10, considering the workload, the educational qualifications of the Respondent no.4 and the seniority of the respondent no.4, the respondent no.4 was included in the list of 25% Graduate teachers. It is also apparent from the affidavit-in-reply that even if one of the four sections of Standard 8 to 10 is reduced or abolished, the workload of respondent no.4 would still be 2/3rd of the prescribed workload and hence, the respondent no.4 cannot be declared as surplus, being the senior qualified teacher and the only teacher to teach the Biology subject. In the backdrop of these facts, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was declared surplus along with four others 3 merely with a view to favour respondent no.4, is liable to be rejected. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale