1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4450 of 2011 Mrs. Anjali Ravindra Ambardekar ...Petitioner Versus The President/Secretary, People’s Education Society, Thane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M.S.Lagu for Petitioners. Mr. Roshan S. Tanna i/b. Kailas S. Dewal Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 4th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inda, the petitioner takes exception to the decision of the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane dated 23rd May, 2011. By the said Order, the Education Officer rejected the proposal of granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant 2 Head Master on the ground that the petitioner has been appointed against the post which is earmarked for reserved category candidate. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there were only two posts of Assistant Head Master in the school, the question of setting apart the post for reserved candidate does not arise in view of the exposition of the Full Bench of our High Court in the case of New English High School Association and another vs. Baldev S/o. Fakira Ade & Anr. reported in 2007(1) ALL MR 381. 2. Learned AGP, in all fairness, submits that the Education Officer was obliged to consider the efficacy of the abovesaid decision which has been overlooked by him while rejecting the proposal of the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the other contentions raised in the present petition, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned decision dated 23rd May, 2011 and relegating the parties before the Education Officer for fresh hearing and deciding the proposal denovo after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, namely the petitioner and the management of the school. 3 3. The questions raised in this petition are left open to be decided on its own merits by the Education Officer keeping in mind the relevant decisions, including the decision of our High Court and the subsequent regulations made applicable. 4. Mr. Tanna, is present on behalf of the respondent no.1. The Education Officer shall decide the proposal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. 5. The parties shall appear in the Office of the Education Officer on 12th August, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. , on which date it will be open for the Education Officer to specify the schedule of hearing of the matter, ensuring that the final decision is taken within the prescribed period. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)