FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 439 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondents. 3 Having regard to the nature of controversy brought before this Court, we think it appropriate to finally dispose of the writ petition at admission stage itself. 4 The order which is impugned in this petition is passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli at Exh.J dated 29th August, 2009 whereby the petitioner had submitted the proposal for approval to the appointment of Shri Korde Shivaji Sitaram against the leave vacancy which had arisen due to leave taken by Sau. L.K. Gavali, Assistant Teacher for medical reasons. The proposal has been rejected essentially on the ground that the petitioner was not permanent Head Master. 5 The learned A.G.P. invited our attention to the order which records the fact that the petitioner in the first place appointed Shri Korde Shivaji Sitaram against leave vacancy on temporary basis for three months and thereafter, submitted the proposal. In so far as the first ground is concerned, no provision has been brought to our notice either in the Act or Rules or Regulations which postulates that the appointment in respect of leave vacancy can be made only by the permanent or regular head master. In that sense, the principal reason which weighed with the authority cannot be sustained in law. Indeed, the petitioner, without taking prior approval, appointed Shri Korde Shivaji Sitaram but the proposal mentions the fact that out of 21 sanctioned posts, only 18 teachers were working and the appointment was necessitated in the interest of students as such. Moreover, what has been overlooked by the Education Officer is that the appointment was only for a temporary period of three months in anticipation that Sau. Gavali L.K. will resume duties but, the same was required to be extended as Sau Gavali could not resume due to continued illness. 6 During the course of arguments, the learned A.G.P. submitted that hearing of this petition may be deferred so that reply affidavit can be filed. We rejected that request as in our opinion, it is well established that the reasons recorded in the order alone can be taken into account and cannot be improved upon by way of affidavit. 7 In our opinion, therefore, the order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. Instead, the Education Officer (Secondary) is directed to re-examine the proposal, in accordance with law and pass appropriate direction as may be advised. That be done within four weeks from today. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 04.02.2010. PLK/*