1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 475/2008 (Anuradha Ashok Deshkar VERSUS The State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. Government Pleader for the R-1 to 3. Mr. M.R. Johrapurkar, counsel for the R-5. Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, counsel for the R-7. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 23, 2008. Heard. Mr. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner was appointed as Head-Mistress with effect from 01.12.2003 and approval was also granted by the Education Department vide order dated 26.12.2003. It is contended that the administrative and financial powers which were given to the petitioner while serving as Head-Mistress came to be withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2007. However, these powers were again restored vide order dated 30.11.2007. Mr. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner was appointed as Head-Mistress in the year 2003 and her appointment was also approved by the Education Department and though the petitioner continued to function as Head- Mistress till 2008, the Education Officer, all of a 2 sudden, issued the impugned communication dated 17.01.2008, whereby the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner were withdrawn and were given to respondent no.7 with effect from 18.01.2008. This is the communication which is impugned in the present petition. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, and therefore, the impugned communication is bad in law. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that though the petitioner was appointed as Head-Mistress with effect from 01.12.2003, however, the approval which was granted by the Education Officer vide order dated 26.12.2003 was only for a period of two years on probation and the said period was expired on 30.11.2005. The Additional Government Pleader has submitted that after expiry of the probation period, the Education Officer has not granted approval to the post of Head-Mistress held by the petitioner, and from time to time, the petitioner was given administrative and financial powers by the management by passing resolutions. It is contended that the last order passed by the Education Officer dated 30.11.2007 clearly discloses that the petitioner was given administrative and financial powers as 3 Head-Mistress only for a period of three months. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Full Bench, while considering the inter se seniority of the employees, the criteria evolved was that seniority should be counted from the date on which the candidate acquires the requisite qualification for the post. It is, therefore, contended that in the instant case, though the petitioner was appointed on 14.07.1986, however, did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of her appointment itself i.e. S.S.C., D.Ed. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the law laid down by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the respondent no.7 is eligible to be appointed on the post of Head-Master, and therefore, the impugned communication came to be issued. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the approval granted to the petitioner on the post of Head-Mistress was only for a period of two years and the said period was over on 30.11.2005. It is not in dispute that thereafter, there was no substantive approval granted to the post of Head-Mistress held by the petitioner and from time to time only administrative and financial powers were given to the petitioner. The petitioner has not made any grievance till this date though the substantive approval granted by the Education Department to the post held by the petitioner i.e. Head-Mistress was 4 expired on 30.11.2005 and merely because the petitioner was continued on the post of Head- Mistress by the management and was given administrative and financial powers from time to time, would not mean that the Education Department has revived the substantive approval which was expired with effect from 30.11.2005. Even otherwise, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and in view of the undisputed facts referred to hereinabove, the conclusion arrived at by the Education Officer and reflected in the impugned communication, in our view, is just and proper. Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE