IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6059 OF 2009 Rajan Madhusudhan Patil ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents --- Shri N.V. Bandiwadekar for Petitioner Shri P.I. Khemani AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri Mandar Limaye a/w. Mr.Mahendra Agavekar for Respondent No.3 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 17TH JULY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. Respondents waive service. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 4. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) dated 25.6.2009, whereby the application for approval made by the Respondent No.3 Management for granting approval to the Petitioner in the post of Senior Clerk was rejected. 5. The brief facts are as under: The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 14.6.1992 at Madhyamik Vidyalay, Dadar, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad which is run by the Respondent No.3 Society. The said appointment was duly approved. Thereafter, the post of Senior Clerk become vacant in the school at Kalamboli, which was run by the Respondent No.3. Taking into consideration the seniority list of the Petitioner and his book service record, the management by order dated 25.8.2007 promoted the Petitioner in the said vacancy of the senior clerk. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined the said post at the said school and submitted his joining report on 1.9.2009. Thereafter, by letter dated 1.9.2007, the head master of the school submitted a proposal to the Respondent No.2 and sought approval to the aforesaid promotion of the Petitioner herein. All the necessary documents such as seniority list, joining report etc. were annexed to the said proposal. The Respondent No.2, however, refused to grant approval to the promotion of the Petitioner as junior clerk by order dated 25.6.2009. In the said order, two reasons were assigned for not granting approval: (i) The uptodate seniority list had not been annexed by the Management. (ii) The post of senior clerk could not be approved in view of the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005. Perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that there is a complete non-application of mind on the part of the Education Officer. So far as the first ground is concerned, the reason given by the Education Officer is patently incorrect since a copy of the seniority list was annexed with the proposal by the Head Master of the school which is evident from the enclosure annexed to the proposal. So far as second ground is concerned, the Education Officer has given a certificate in which he has stated that in all about 2810 students were studying in the said school and two posts of senior clerk were available for the Management. The resolution dated 25.11.2005, clearly indicates that if the number of students is upto 2000, two senior clerks can be appointed by the Management and, as such, the Education Officer had erred in not granting approval on account of the two grounds. In the result, the impugned order dated 25.6.2009 is quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as senior clerk. It is clarified that if the said promotion order is challenged by any other employee by filing an appeal under section 9 of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal, in that event, the School Tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order, directing the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 shall release salary of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks. 6. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)