1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2010 G.I. Hampannawar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2010. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard filly by consent of the parties. By this petition, the Petitioner whose is a head master of a recognized private school, challenges the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Education Officer declining to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Headmaster of an aided recognized school. The Management by resolution dated 5.6.2010 decided to promote the Petitioner to the post of Headmaster. By order dated 5.7.2010 Education Officer approved the appointment of the Petitioner as a headmaster. Admittedly there are two schools run by the Management. On 8.7.2010 the impugned letter was issued by the Education Officer informing the Management that as there are 2 two schools run by the same Management and there are two pots of Head Master as Management has not said anything about other post of headmaster, and as reservation is applicable, proposal is rejected and the Management is directed to submit a fresh proposal. We heard the learned counsel for both the sides. In our opinion, the communication dad 8.7.2010 has to be set aside at least for two reasons, firstly the Education Officer once having granted approval by his order dated 5.7.2010 could not have rejected the proposal in any case without any show cause notice to the Management and Headmaster and secondly even according to education officer, there are only two posts of Headmaster. The reservation for backward classes provided under the Act is 33% and as such none of the Posts could have been reserved. In our opinion, therefore, the order dated 8.7.2010 will have to be set aside. It is clarified that in case according to Education Officer, for any reason, the approval given to the appointment of the Petitioner needs to be withdrawn, he will be free to take action after following due process of law. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)