: 1 : wp.2678.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2678 OF 2011 Manzoor Khan Wahid Khan .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.M. Pradhan with Sanjay Patil for the Petitioner Mrs.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 Mr.A.A. Siddiqui for Resp. No.4 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Pradhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenges the order of approval dated 28.1.2011 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik. 2. The petitioner claims that he is a member of the Trust known as Shaikh Usman Education Society, Malegaon and it is registered as a public trust. As per the petitioner, there was no school committee in existence when the appointments of school teachers / shikshan sevaks were made from the year 2005 onwards in the school run by the said : 2 : wp.2678.2011 society i.e. the Principal Shaikh Usman High School at Malegaon. 3. The Petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.4542 of 2009 and claimed that three shikshan sevaks and 5 assistant teachers were appointed in the year 2005 – 2006 on different days. Their proposals were forwarded to the Education Officer – Secondary for approval. These proposals were not attended to and no decision was communicated by the Education Officer. The Petitioner, therefore, sought directions against the Education Officer to clear the pending proposals. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 14.1.2010 directed the Education Officer to take a decision on the proposals submitted by the Petitioner management (the petition was filed by the present petitioner as a representing the management) in respect of the teachers one way or the other in accordance with law and the procedure applicable in that behalf within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. Consequently, the order dated 28.1.2011 came to be passed by the Education Officer. He considered all the pending proposals and granted approval to 4 shikshan sevaks' appointment on the aided sections. He also granted approval to the appointment of 5 assistant teachers on probation on the unaided sections of the school. Thus, when the impugned order has : 3 : wp.2678.2011 been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.4542 of 2009 in Civil Application No.1359 of 2009, the petitioner now takes a plea in this Petition filed in his individual capacity that the appointments are illegal as there was no school committee in existence. 4. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by Shri Prashant Mahabole, Superintendent (Class II), Office of the Education Officer - Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. The affidavit clearly denies the allegations made by the petitioner that the school was not in existence in the year 2005-2006. It has been stated that the school committee was in existence till 30.9.2005 and on expiry of its tenure a fresh committee was reconstituted on 1.10.2005 as per the letter received by Respondent No.2 the Education Officer on 7.6.2010 from the school management. The names of the school committee members were also furnished in the same letter. The affidavit further states that by the impugned order, approval was granted to the appointment of 9 teachers / shikshan sevaks on ascertaining that they were eligible, due selection procedures were followed and the appointments were made as against the existing vacancies. A copy of the letter dated 30.9.2005 and 10..2010 of the society is placed on : 4 : wp.2678.2011 record and the first school committee of seven members was in existence and subsequently a new committee was established w.e.f. 1.10.2005. Fresh elections to the managing committee of the trust were held and from 27.6.2006 in place of the committee constituted on 1.10.2005, a new school committee was constituted. 5. On the basis of the clarifications set out in the affidavit in reply filed by Shri Prashant Mahabole as well as Anil Aatmaram Bhangre, Deputy Education Officer, it is clear that no fault can be found with the impugned order and, therefore, this petition must fail at the threshold. 6. The Petition is rejected summarily. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)