1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4947/2010. Sau. Sugandha Damduji Khode and another -versus- Education Officer [Primary] Zilla Parishad, Amravati __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2011. Heard Shri P.S. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri D.M. Kale, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. Nobody appears for respondent no.2 though served. Shri Kale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 is seeking further time to file affidavit, stating that he has received instructions. Shri Patil, learned counsel for petitioners has opposed that request. He points out that notice was issued on 18.10.2010 and approval already granted to present petitioner has been canceled behind his back. We have 2 therefore, proceeded to hear the respective counsel. We gather that because of some oral instructions issued by the superior officer (Principal Secretary), the respondent no.1 has passed the impugned orders. The petitioners were promoted as headmasters and the management – respondent no.2 has got only two schools. Applicability of roaster in such circumstances is ruled out by Full Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2006[6] Mh.L.J. 882 (New English High School Association, Nagpur and another .vrs. Baldev Fakira Adel). Shri Patil, learned Counsel for petitioners has attempted to point out to this Court a subsequent un- reported judgment which takes similar view even in relation to amended provisions of Rule 9 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. However, we do not find it necessary to go into all these questions. The decision about grant of approval or its withdrawal is to be taken by the respondent no.1 in its own wisdom and jurisdiction. He cannot be guided or directed by anybody else in that exercise. If any reservation policy of State/law is applicable, and it 3 necessitated cancellation of approval already granted to petitioners, principles of natural justice require respondent no.1 to hear the petitioners before taking any adverse decision. Admittedly, that has not been done in the present matter. Hence, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.02.1010 passed by the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is free to issue appropriate show cause notice to both the petitioners, if he wants to withdraw/recall the order by which approval has already been granted to them. However, decision in this respect shall be taken by the respondent no.1 in his own wisdom and un-influenced by any directions either oral or in writing by his superior. The law on which Shri Patil, learned counsel is placing reliance can be pressed into service before respondent no.1, if such show cause notice is received by petitioners. Accordingly we partly allow the writ petition. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.