1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3951/2007 Pravin Kumar s/o Bhaurao Shrawankar and others vs. Devi Saraswati Mahila Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and others. ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.R.Patil, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Parihar, A.G.P. for respondents 3 and 5. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 23.1.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMNT OF THE ORDER: 28.1.2009 Heard Mr. A.R. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Jibhkate,learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Parihar, learned A.G.P. for respondents 3 and 5. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs: i) call for the record from Respondent No.1 with regard to selection appointment of the candidates as well as direct the Respondent No.1 to produce the appointment orders issued to the Petitioners by suitable writ, order or direction; ii) direct the Respondents to pay the entire salary 2` of Petitioner from 2004-05 onwards with 18% interest and further direct to pay the regular salary every month till they are in the employment in the interest of justice; iii) quash and set aside the order of Respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara dated 13/06/2007 (Annex. 'C') so far as it relates to the cancellation of approval of the appointment of the petitioners only by suitable writ, order or direction; 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed in respondent no.2 School with effect from the year 2004 by respondent no.1 and they were qualified for being appointed to the post for which they were appointed. The approval for their appointments was granted by respondent no.3 on 13.4.2007. The said approval was cancelled vide order dated 13.6.2007 by respondent no. 3 without hearing the petitioners. 4. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioners were never appointed in the respondent no.2 School and at no point of time proposal for granting approval was sent by respondent no.1 to respondent no.3 and as such question of granting any relief to the petitioners does not arise. 5. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners 3` submitted that since the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioners on 13.4.2007 was cancelled by order dated 13.6.2007 without hearing the petitioners, the petitioners would have no objection if the Education Officer is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. He further submitted that at this stage the petitioners are not pressing the reliefs sought in the petition and all the contentions raised by the petitioners in the petition be kept open. 6. Mr. Parihar, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondents 3 and 5 submitted that he will have no objection if the respondent no.3 is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. 7. Mr. Jibhkate, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioners were never appointed by respondent no.1 and at no point of time the proposal for appointment of the petitioners was submitted by respondents 1 and 2 to respondent no.3 and as such the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. He, however, submitted that he will have no objection if the respondent no.3 passes fresh orders after hearing the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 but all the contentions of respondents 1 and 2 including the contention that the 4` petitioners were not appointed by respondent no.1 be kept open. 8. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 13.6.2007 and direct the respondent no.3 to hear the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 and pass appropriate orders. The parties shall appear before respondent no.3 on 12.2.2009 at 11 a.m.. The respondent no.3 shall pass appropriate order after hearing petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, expeditiously and in any case within a period of four weeks from 12.2.2009. Needless to mention that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival claims and all the contentions of the parties in the petition are kept open. 9. The writ petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`