1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2010 Babu Genu Shikshan Sanstha's Late. Kusumtai Shankarrao Chavan Junior College, Jamb (Bk), Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded, Through its Secretary, Kamalbai W/o Balaji Shinde, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Plot No. 15, Aryavrat Colony, Jintur Road, Parbhani. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Department of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Secondary & High Secondary, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Secondary & High Secondary, Latur Region, Latur. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zillah Parishad, Nanded. 2 5. The Education Officer, Zillah Parishad, Nanded. 6. The Panchayat Samiti, Education Department - 2, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 7. Namdeo J. Kamble, Age : Major, Occu. : Service, At present serving as Block Education Officer, Education Department, Panchayat Samiti, Nanded. 8. Nitiniketan Madhyamik & Ucchmadhyamik Vidyalaya, Jamb (Bk). Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. 9. The Secretary, Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Divisional Board, Latur. .. .. Respondents Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate h/f Shri N. K. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondents No. 4 to 6. Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 8. 3 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 09TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : 01. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 02. This petition impugns the communication of the Education Officer, dated 21st October, 2009 informing the petitioner that the first time recognition sought for by the petitioner for opening the school has been rejected. Similar communication is dated 14.10.2009. The aforesaid communications which have been issued by the Education Officer are subject matter of the challenge in the present petition. 03. Undisputedly, the petitioner had applied for first time recognition to the institution for the academic year 2008-2009. Since the aforesaid proposal was pending, the petitioner submitted another proposal for the academic year 2009-2010. Learned counsel for the parties did not dispute the legal position 4 that the Deputy Director of Education is alone empowered to either grant or refuse the permission when the permission is being sought by the institute for the first time. In the present case by the impugned order, the Education Officer has refused to grant the permission/approval. Since the order of the Education officer is without jurisdiction, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 04. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders and further direct the Deputy Director of Education to decide the applications/proposal submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner within one month from today. The learned Assistant Government Pleader undertakes to communicate this order to the respondent/Deputy Director of Education. 05. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10