1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3054 OF 2008 Syed Zahiruddin Quadri Age 47 years, Occ. Service, Headmaster, Gulshan-E-Altaf Urdu Primary School, Osmanabad. .. petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Director of Education, Pune. 3] The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Latur. 4] The Education Office (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 5] The President, Shams Education Society, Osmanabad. 6] The Deputy Commissioner (Labour), Bunglow No.5, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune 411 005. 7] P.S. Nanaware, The President, Backward Class Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Union, Osmanabad, Presently serving as Assistant Teacher, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya, Bhimnagar, Osmanabad. 2 8] Smt. B.A. Shaikh, Headmistress, Shams Ul-Uloom High School, Khajanagar, Osmanabad (women's representative of Backward Class Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Union, Osmanabad. .. Respondent. --- Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent No.7 Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER,2009. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd April, 2008 vide which the approval granted to the promotion of the petitioner as Head Master vide order dated 22nd May, 2009, was cancelled. 2] It is the case of the petitioner that the order cancelling the approval granted earlier has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. 3 3] The respondent No.4 in the affidavit in reply has admitted the said position. It is stated that the said respondent had sought clarification from the office of the respondent No.2. However, since the respondent No.7 was insisting upon taking action against the petitioner, the approval was cancelled. The said authority has also accepted the position that while cancelling the order of approval, it is necessary that all the concerned parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing. It is therefore, stated that order would be required to be passed in accordance with law and till then this order dated 3rd April, 2008 will not be acted upon. 4] We find that the stand of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice stands fortified by the averments made by the respondent No.4 in his affidavit in reply. 5] In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). It is further made clear that the respondent No.4 would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 4