1 wp9391.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9391 OF 2011 Hemant Pamulal Kavade & Ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through­ Secretary, Secondary Education Department & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM :­ D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :­ 19 DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. :­ Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3 By this Petition, the Petitioners who are members of non­ teaching staff in Respondent No.5 School, take exception to the order dated 14 September 2011 passed by Respondent No.3, Education Officer cancelling the approval granted to their appointment earlier 2 wp9391.11.sxw ssm and directing recovery of wages paid to them. It is an admitted position that on 28 October 2004, the Education Officer had approved the appointment of the members of non­teaching staff recognizing that they have been appointed w.e.f. 10 June 2002 on probation. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the order cancelling the approval has been made after a period of 7 years without issuing any show cause notice and without assigning any reason. The learned AGP, who appears for the Education officer was asked by us on last date to keep the Education Officer present to find out the reason why he has made such an extra ordinary order. He is present today. Neither the learned AGP nor the Education Officer concerned is able to give any reason why the order dated 14 September 2011 was made after lapse of such a long time without giving any notice and without assigning any reason. Making of such orders results in harassment to the concerned employees and the education society. It also increases the workload of the Court because affected persons have no alternative but to approach the Court of law. 4 The order impugned in the Petition, is therefore, set aside. However, in our opinion, considering the conduct of the Education Officer concerned, by name Mr. M.G. Ambedkar, Education Officer, 3 wp9391.11.sxw ssm (Secondary) Solapur, in our opinion, suitable Departmental action is liable to be taken against the Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, it will be appropriate to direct the office to send a copy of this order to the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune and the Principal Secretary of the Department of School Education. These authorities shall look into the case and if it is found that the concerned Education Officer is guilty of misconduct, appropriate action be taken against him. 5 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)