1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1554 OF 2010 Surendra Vitthal Pardeshi, Age 36 years, Occ.Service, R/o Kusumba, Tq. Dhule, District Dhule. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, District Dhule. 3. The Social and Cultural Association Kusumba, Tq. Dhule, Dist. Dhule, through its President/Secretary. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.D.S.Bagul, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.N.D.Sonawane, advocate for the Respondent No. 3. ... 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 03.05.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication issued by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, dated 3l.8.2009, granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a part time Head Master and also directing the petitioner to engage classes. 3. It appears that one Mr.Choudhary was the Head Master of the School and on account of his termination on 15.4.2009, a vacancy was created. Two other teachers who were senior to the petitioner, namely, one Mr.Choudhary and one 3 Mr.Shaikh expressed in writing their disinclination to be appointed as a Head Master. Consequent to that the Management passed a Resolution appointing the petitioner as the Head Master and accordingly submitted the proposal for approval to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule by the impugned communication granted only part time approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 4. Mr.Bagul, learned counsel for Respondent Education Officer i.e. Respondent No.2 has at the outset very fairly stated that the appointment of the petitioner as a part time Head Master could not have been issued under the Rules as the aforesaid order is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In that light of the matter, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the Education Officer to decide the proposal afresh. It also appears that an appeal came to be filed by Mr.Choudhary challenging his termination and the said appeal is said to be pending. In the light 4 of the pendency of the appeal, it would be appropriate for the Education Officer to have granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner subject to the decision of the appeal. 5. In that light of the matter, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 31.8.2009 and direct the Education Officer to decide the said proposal afresh by issuing necessary orders granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a Head Master subject to the decision of the appeal. This be done within two (2) weeks from today. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 undertakes to communicate this order to Respondent No.2. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp155410 5