1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4316/2008 (Ashish Manikrao Sawakar and ors. .vs. Deputy Director of Education, Z.P. Yavatmal and one ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= CORAM : D.D.SINHA &, A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2009 Heard Mr. S.A. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Mr. A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners no.1 and 2 are appointed as Assistant Teachers, petitioner no.3 as Laboratory Attendant whereas petitioner no.4 as Peon by respondent no.2/Management after following due procedure applicable in this regard. It is contended that respondent no.2 Management has forwarded the proposals of the petitioners to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal for consideration of grant of approval. The Education Officer vide communication dated 17.3.2007 addressed to the Principal of the School in question 2 communicated that there are certain discrepancies in the proposals of the petitioners forwarded by the Management. These discrepancies are mentioned in the said communication which is annexed as Annexure R-IV with the submissions. Mr. Kilor, learned counsel for respondent no.2/Management has submitted that all the discrepancies mentioned in the communication dated 17.3.2007 are rectified and all requisite documents are already forwarded to the Education Officer which is reflected in the communication dated 22.3.2007 issued by the Management to the Education Officer, annexed with the submissions as Annexure R-V. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent no.1 who is the Administrator of the School has issued an advertisement dated 20.9.2008 for filling up the various posts which includes the posts already occupied by the petitioners. It is contended that since the discrepancies in the proposals are rectified by the Management, the Education Officer may be asked to reconsider the cases of the petitioners afresh in the light of these circumstances. The counsel for the petitioners further prays that till the decision is taken by the Education Officer, the advertisement dated 20.9.2008 issued by respondent no.1/Administrator may be kept in abeyance. Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader has submitted that the proposals of the petitioners submitted by the Management for grant of approval were rejected in view 3 of certain short-comings and if those short-comings are rectified by the Management, the claim of the petitioners for grant of approval will be considered as per the directions of this Court afresh in accordance with law. Considered the rival contentions. In the backdrop of the above referred aspects, we are of the view that the Education Officer should reconsider the issue regarding grant of approval to the petitioners in accordance with law on its own merit and take a decision accordingly within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct respondent no.1 not to take any further steps pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.9.2008 till such time the decision is taken by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE halwai