( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2723 OF 2010 1. Madhavi d/o. Balasaheb Joshi .. Petitioners Age. 26 years, Occ. Service, R/o. C/o. Balkrushna Madhukarrao Mule, At & Post Akola, Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Ambadas s/o. Dnyandeo Misal Age. 26 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Bhenda (Bk), Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus 1. Raja Shiv Chatrapati Vidya Prasarak Mandal..Respondents Mukindpur, Tal. Newasa, District Ahmednagar Through its President Shri Ramdas Gahininath Golhar, Age. 48 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. As above. 2. Raje Sambhaji Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Koutha, Tal. Newasa, District Ahmednagar, Through its Head Master, Shri Balasaheb Ramrao Jadhav, Age. 40 years, Occ. Service, R/o. As above. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 4. The State of Maharashtra, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. ( 2 ) 5. Rahul Subhash Sirasath, Age. 35 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Rahul Graphics, At & Post – Kukana, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Bapu Mukinda Kale, Age. 34 years, Occ. Service, At & Post – Kautha, Taluka – Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Mr. R.L. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 04.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 9th March, 2010, thereby placing the ( 3 ) petitioners as junior to respondent No.5. 3. Mr. Sangit, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though respondent No.5 was initially appointed for a period of 11 months and though after his termination he did not join services, as per the interim order passed by learned School Tribunal for a period of 18 months, the management hand in glove with him has shown respondent No.5 as senior to the petitioners, thereby depriving the petitioners of the grantable salary which was already made admissible to them. He submitted that previously granted salary has been reduced and further recovery is sought to be made from the salary of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on the contrary submits that since respondent No.5 was senior in service to the petitioners, the order has been rightly passed by the Education Officer. 5. From the perusal of record, it reveals that respondent No.5 has been appointed on 13th July, 2002, whereas the petitioners have been appointed on 18th December, 2006 and ( 4 ) 19th December, 2006. It can thus clearly be seen that the appointments of the petitioners are much after appointment of respondent No.5. In any case, the appeal filed by respondent No.5 has been allowed by learned School Tribunal and as such grievance of the petitioners in this respect is not found to be tenable. We, therefore, do not find error in the order dated 9th March, 2010. 7. That leaves us to the question whether recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner is permissible in law or not. Admittedly, the salary which was paid to the petitioners earlier has not been paid on account of misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioners. It is only on account of certain circumstances for which the petitioners cannot be faulted, higher salary was paid to them by the Education Officer. The Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., (2009) 3 S.C.C.475, has held that if higher salary is paid to the employee on account of fault, which cannot be attributed to said employee, such recovery is not permissible in law. 8. We therefore quash the impugned order only to the ( 5 ) extent of recovery of amount from their salary. Rule made accordingly absolute and petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. [A.A. SAYED,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/wp2723.10