1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5667 OF 2009 Kailas s/o Vitthal Bakal, Age 31 years, Occu.Service, R/o Yeshwant Primary Ashram School, Lihakhedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Director, Educational Research & Training Council, Maharashtra, Pune 30 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 4. The Head Master, Yeshawant Primary Ashram School, Lihakhedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS Shri K.D.Bade Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri A.P.Avhad, Advocate for respondent No.4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5683 OF 2009 Vitthal s/o Mahadu Salve, Age 33 years, Occu.Service, R/o Yeshwant Primary Ashram School, Lihakhedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Director, Educational Research & Training Council, Maharashtra, Pune 30 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 4. The Head Master, Yeshawant Primary Ashram School, Lihakhedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS Shri K.D.Bade Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri A.P.Avhad, Advocate for respondent No.4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5684 OF 2009 Sitaram s/o Daulat Kale, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o Yeshwant Primary Ashram School, Lihakhedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Director, Educational Research & Training Council, Maharashtra, Pune 30 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3 4. The Head Master, Yeshawant Primary Ashram School, Lihakhedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS Shri K.D.Bade Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri A.P.Avhad, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 14th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Since the three petitions raise common grounds of challenge to the order of authority, these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 3. In all the three petitions, the petitioners had submitted their application for admission to Postal D.Ed. course. The aforesaid applications came to be rejected by order of the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad by order dated 30.5.2008 giving six reasons as to why the applications of the petitioners came to be rejected. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the 4 Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad rejecting their applications, submitted appeal to the Director of Education, Pune. The Director of Education, Pune i.e. the appellate authority by an order dated 31.1.2009 dismissed the appeal. Against the aforesaid orders these petitions are filed. 4. Shri K.D.Bade Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset urged before us that the order/judgment of the appellate authority discloses a total non-application of mind to the facts in the present matters. On notice being issued to the respondents, the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that the respondents contend that the reasons given by the appellate authority are in addition to the reasons given by the Deputy Director of Education. 5. Perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Education reveals six grounds on which the applications of the petitioners came to be rejected. The appellate authority has found out eight different infirmities for rejecting the applications. The Director of Education was exercising the appellate powers and, therefore, as an appellate authority it ought to have stated so in the order/judgment that the reasons given by the appellate authority were in addition to the reasons given by the Deputy Director of Education. The reasons given by the Deputy Director of Educatin 5 and by the appellate authority are completely different. According to us the order/judgment of the appellate authority dated 31.1.2009 discloses a complete non-application of mind to the facts in issue. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us these petitions deserve to succeed. 6. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the impugned order of the Director of Education, Pune dated 31.1.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Director of Education, Pune for deciding the appeals of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from today and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5667.09wp