1 .IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 795 of 2011 Raosaheb v. The Dy Director of Education and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr P.S. Patil, Adv for petitioner Mr A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respdts no.1 & 2 Coram: D.D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 7th April 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. Writ Petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 25.1.2011 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) (respondent no.2) whereby earlier order dated 19.1.2011 issued by the Education Officer came to be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is Secretary of the Managing Committee had made a complaint to the Education Officer against respondent no. 3 in respect of irregularities alleged to have been committed by respondent no. 3. The Deputy Director of Education permitted the members who are shown in Schedule-I to consider the issue and take appropriate decision. Pursuant to that, the decision was taken to suspend respondent no. 3 and the 2 proposal was forwarded to the Education Officer for grant of approval which was granted by the Education Officer vide order dated 19.1.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Education Officer has all of a sudden recalled the said order by the impugned order and, therefore, the present writ petition challenging the validity of the said order passed by the Education Officer. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that it is not in dispute that the Deputy Director of Education directed the management, particularly, the persons shown in Schedule-I to consider the issue and take decision in respect of respondent no. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that though the decision was taken by the persons whose names are shown in Schedule-I, however, at a later point of time, it was noticed that the decision was not taken by the majority of members shown in Schedule-I and, therefore, approval which is granted by the Education Officer vide order dated 19.1.2011 was not proper and hence, by the impugned communication, the Education Officer recalled the said order which is just and proper. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears that the decision which was taken by the members shown in Schedule-I was not by majority and, therefore, the Education Officer by impugned communication cancelled the earlier order dated 19.1.2011 whereby the approval was granted for suspension of 3 respondent no. 3 since the decision was not taken by majority. Hence, there is no case made out for showing indulgence in the present petition. Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE joshi