1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 472/2011 Rajeram Nathu Rakhade -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 20, 2011. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri N.N. Motghare, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Grievance of petitioner is, his approval was erroneously rejected on 09.06.2006 and appeal preferred against it in the year 2009 is still pending. Shri Samarth, learned counsel states that petitioner still continues in the service. 2 Shri Motghare, learned Counsel who appears for respondent no.4 Management states that petitioner has been appointed after proper advertisement and still continues in service. Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. has pointed out that management was given permission to appoint on 10.03.2000 and accordingly a B.A., B.P.Ed., and Junior Clerk could have been appointed. Thereafter on 17.03.2000 petitioner claims to have been appointed. Our attention has been invited to approvals granted on 24.05.2002 to urge that persons at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 have been appointed by the management in pursuance of permission given to the management on 10.03.2000. It is however, urged that rejection of approval is in 2006 and appeal against it was filed after more than 3 years and then petition has been filed in the year 2011. Thus, not only the appeal, but approach to this Court is also barred by limitation. We find prima facie that the appointment of petitioner cannot be connected with the approvals granted on 24.05.2002. The approval granted as per that communications is to one R.C. Mohobe, B.Sc., 3 B.Ed. and S.Z. Banote, M.A. B.Ed. There are two other names in it. Both the candidates are M.A., B.Ed. and B.A. B.Ed.. It is therefore, obvious that none of these candidates have been appointed on post permitted to be filled in on 10.03.2000. Learned A.G.P. has further clarified that after 10.03.2000 the department has not received any other proposal for approval. The communication dated 25.03.2000 sent to Education Officer (Secondary) reveals that the approval to the appointment of petitioner from 01.12.2000 as Shikshan Sevak. It is, therefore, obvious that the Education Officer has found entry of petitioner in service legal and valid. The said entry cannot be in absence of any other document, except of document dated 10.03.2000. The petitioner still continues in the service and his appeal against the order of rejection of approval, preferred in 2009 is also stated to be pending. In this situation, without observing anything more on merits, we direct the respondent no.2 Deputy Director to decide the appeal as filed, as early as possible, and in any case within a period of two 4 months, after the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5 appear before it. Petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 23.08.2011 and abide by its further directions in the matter. In view of this, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd