1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1393 OF 2010 Banda Navbharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ...Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr C.J. Sawant, Sr Counsel i/b Mr Nitin Dhumal for Petitioners. Mr S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R. JOSHI JJ. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner  educational institution makes a grievance by this petition against the letter dated 31st December 2009 whereby the Education Officer (Secondary) has stated that though excess salary paid to the excess teachers was directed to be recovered, it has not been recovered and therefore, steps will be taken to recover the salary paid to the excess teachers. The relevant facts are that by order dated 22nd October 2008, the Education Officer (Secondary) informed the petitioners that so far as the year 2004-05 is concerned, number of sections are being reduced because number of sections were got increased by the institution by showing bogus admission of students. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that because of the order dated 22nd October 2008, reducing the number of sections, a representation was addressed to the Education Minister dated 26th March 2009. Perusal of that letter however shows that the allegation that during 3 the year 2004-05 admission of bogus students was shown is not even denied. There is no request made that the order of the Education Officer (Secondary) reducing the number of sections should be recalled. In this background therefore, the consequential order was made on 24th June 2009 reducing the number of sanctioned posts of teachers. There is nothing on record which will show that the petitioners made any grievance against the order dated 24th June 2009 reducing the sanctioned posts of teachers. 2] As a consequence of all this, it appears that the Education Officer (Secondary) directed that the salary which was paid from the Government fund to the teachers whose posts were got sanctioned by showing bogus admission of students should be recovered from those teachers but the management did not take any steps to recover salary from those teachers. Therefore, the Education Officer (Secondary) was forced to make the direction in the letter dated 24th June 2009. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners states that the order 4 dated 31st December 2009 has been made without granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The order dated 31st December 2009 is merely a consequential order, basic order is the order dated 22nd October 2008 reducing the number of sections on allegation that the petitioners had shown bogus admission of students. It was for the petitioners to challenge that order before appropriate forum. The petitioners did not challenge that order and accepted the same. The petitioners also did not challenge the first consequential order viz. Reducing the number of sanctioned posts of teachers which was done by order dated 24th June 2009. In our opinion, as the order dated 22nd October 2008 and 24th June 2009 have gone unchallenged, the petitioners cannot take any exception to the order dated 31st December 2009 which is merely a consequential order. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private 5 Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI )