1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2131 of 2010 Mohamad Shafique Zaheer Siddiqui Age 39 years, Occ. Service. R/o. Plot No. 314, Shirin Apartment, Near Bohara Masjid, Shivaji Nagar Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Dy. Director of Education Nashik Division, Nashik. 3] The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4] Anjuman-E-Talimul Muslimin's Education Society through its Chairman Shri Abdul Gafar Malik Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon. 5] Anjuman-E-Talumul Muslimin's Haji Noor Mohamad Chacha Junior College of Arts and Science Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon through its Principal. Respondents Mr. V.B. Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Bokharikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J.]:- 1] Heard . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 25th September, 2009 and 17th November, 2009 thereby rejecting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 3] The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the Junior College run by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, w.e.f. 10th July, 2000. The petitioner's services were confirmed by order dated 12th July 2003 and approval was granted on 24th September, 2003 as a permanent teacher. 4] It appears that since a criminal Case bearing No. 256/2006, was registered against the petitioner, the management terminated his services by order dated 4th August, 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the School Tribunal. The learned School Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. In pursuance to the orders passed by the School Tribunal, the management has already reinstated the petitioner. However, since after reinstatement, the proposal for approval was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner has approached this court. 5] In an affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Deputy Director it is observed that since the management has not supplied 3 the necessary information the case of the petitioner for grant of approval could not be considered. 6] From the order impugned, it can be seen that the only ground on which the approval is rejected is that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The Deputy Director was very much aware about this fact he being a party respondent in the proceedings before the School Tribunal. It is, as such clear that the respondent No.2 is aware about the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. When the learned School Tribunal, in spite of noticing that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner has allowed the appeal and when the respondent Deputy Director was a party respondent to the said appeal, there is no occasion to withhold the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval only on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The respondent No.2 has also not challenged the order of the Tribunal. 7] In that view of the matter, we allow the petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C). [A.A. SAYED,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp