 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO:759/2009 (Madhukar s/o Vyankati Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 06th March, 2009. *** 1. Heard Shri M W Hasulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by Respondent No.4 whereby the appeal of the petitioner came to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1999 as an untrained teacher and the District Social Welfare Officer has also granted approval to the said post as untrained teacher with effect from 1.7.2004. It is contended that from the date of appointment till the date of termination, the petitioner was serving in the Primary Ashram School. It is contended that the eligibility of the petitioner at the relevant time was considered by the authorities concerned and since the Social Welfare Officer approved the appointment, there was no occasion for the respondent to reconsider the issue afresh and  terminate the services of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not at fault nor obtained the appointment by playing fraud or misrepresentation. The petitioner was duly selected and was also granted approval by the Social Welfare Officer and, therefore, the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner after three years from the date of his appointment, cannot be sustained in law. However, the Respondent No.4 failed to take into consideration all these aspects and therefore, the order impugned in the present Writ Petition is also unsustainable in law. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. Perused the impugned order passed. 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that one-man Committee i.e. Kulkarni Committee was constituted in the year 2003-04 to conduct investigation in respect of irregularities in the appointment of untrained teachers. The Report of the Committee shows that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself is not legally sustainable since adequate number of students as required under the Rule were not available in the concerned School. Similarly, the petitioner belong to village Kandhar in Nanded District and as per the direction of the Government prevalent at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the untrained teacher can be appointed only at the concerned place from where he came from.  5. After taking into consideration these facts as well as other attending circumstances, the Respondent No. 4 dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner and, in our view, rightly so. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare