1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1329 OF 2011. (Suryabhan Wankhede Shaikshanik Krida Sanstha, Moli and another Vs. State of Mah. and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri Anil Mardikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri N.S. Khubhalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Shri Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.6. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2011. Grievance of the petitioner is that though this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.3872/2009 on 19.07.2010 directed Deputy Director of Education to hear parties to the petition and all concerned, the petitioner has not been permitted to participate only on the ground that he was not party to that petition. Advocate Mardikar, points out that proposal for approval of service of petitioner was forwarded by the Management to the Education Officer and on 31.03.2011 the Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana wrote to respondent no.4 that the proposal is being processed in accordance with law. He contends that as such the petitioner is very much interested in the matter. He also contends that 2 by the impugned order dated 29.04.2011, approval has been given to respondent no.6 as Laboratory Attendant. Therefore, the claim of petitioner is adversely affected because of that order behind his back. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3, Advocate Shri Naik for respondent nos. 4 & 5 and Advocate Shri Deshpande for respondent no.6 are supporting the order. It is pointed out to us that the proposal as claimed by the petitioner is not forwarded by the present Management. It is further stated that the Deputy Director of Education has already passed the order, transferring the existing staff and in that order name of present petitioner no.2 does not figure. This order dated 06.03.2009 has not been assailed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the order dated 19.10.2010 is only consequential order and as the name of the petitioner does not figure in earlier order, there is no question of extending any opportunity of hearing to him in the present matter. Advocate Shri Naik, contends that order dated 06.03.2009 which has attained finality and the order dated 19.10.2010 cannot be disturbed. After hearing the respective Counsel, we find that the contentions raised are the disputed questions, which can be resolved by the Deputy Director of Education after giving them an opportunity of hearing. It appears that the proposal seeking approval to appointment of petitioner has been received by the office of Education Officer. But what is validity or sanctity of 3 that proposal needs consideration. The Education Officer has then communicated to petitioner that the said proposal is being looked into. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner is not concerned and interested in the matter. The approval given to respondent no.6 is also on record. There is only one post of Laboratory Attendant and hence, either said respondent or then the petitioner no.2 is eligible to grant approval. Hence, rival contentions before us need to be looked into by the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education can also examine whether order dated 06.03.2009 has attained finality and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any employment or approval. Reason given by said authority for not considering the case of petitioner therefore, shows non-application of mind. It cannot be said that he is not “concerned” with the exercise undertaken by it. In this situation, we direct respondent no.2 - Deputy Director of Education to hear petitioners, respondent no.6 and respondent no.4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order passed on 29.04.2011, granting approval to the services of respondent no.6 shall not come in the way of respondent no.2 in considering such issue again. However, if circumstances so warrant, the respondent shall be at liberty to modify that order and accord approval to petitioner no.2. Parties are directed to appear before the respondent no.2 – Deputy Director of Education for the said purpose on 4 14.12.2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. With the above directions, we dispose of this petition. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN