1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3456/2010 INDRAPAL MATE ..VS.. EDUCATION OFFICER (SEC) Z.P. NAGOUR AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kharkate, advocate for petitioner Shri Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 & 2 Shri Bhongade, advocate for respondent no.3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur on 17.5.2010 deciding the representation filed by the petitioner that he should be relieved from Shri Dutta Vidhyalaya, Rajola, and he should be paid salary also for the period during which he had not worked. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Shri Dutta Vidylayala, Rajola by an order dated 16.10.2006 and respondent no.2 declared the petitioner as surplus. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5515/2006. This court had not granted any stay to the order declaring the petitioner as surplus and asking the petitioner to join in some other school. This court, by the order dated 27.11.2006 disposed of the petition on a statement made by the learned Assistant Government 2 Pleader that the Education Officer would decide the question of inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the other teachers who were declared as excess. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as also the submissions made on behalf of the Education Officer, it appears that four teachers were declared as excess by the management in October 2008 and all the four teachers including the petitioner who was placed at serial no.4 were absorbed in some other schools. The other three teachers who were above the petitioner in the seniority list had joined the school in which they were absorbed. However, the petitioner did not join at Vijay Vidyalaya Champa as per the order dated 19.3.2009. The Education Officer held that there was a reduction of the sections and therefore, it was necessary to absorb the excess teachers in other schools in Nagpur District. It appears that the Education Officer had passed an order on 18.5.2010 mentioning therein that the Headmaster of the School at Rajola had already relieved the petitioner for joining at Vijay Vidyalaya Champa, but the petitioner did not join at the said school, whereas the other three teachers who were relieved had joined in other schools in which they were absorbed. Since the petitioner was junior to the other teachers who were absorbed in the other schools and since they had jointed in the schools where they were absorbed, the Education Officer found that there was no reason for the 3 petitioner to refuse to join in the school where he was absorbed. Shri Thakre, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Education Officer states that the Education Officer would absorb the petitioner in some other school at the earliest and ask for the option of the petitioner as to in which school where the post is vacant, he wishes to join. The aforesaid action should be taken by the Education Officer at the earliest and positively within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. It is however, made clear that if the posts are revived or additional posts of Assistant Teachers are created at the school at Rajola, the management shall given first opportunity to the teachers who have been retrenched and absorbed in other schools to rejoin services in the school, in accordance with the seniority, so that they can exercise their option under sub rule 5(5) of Rule 26 of the M.E.P.S. [Conditions of Service] Rules 1981. Since the impugned order does not suffer from any error, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP