1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3574 OF 2010 1. Pramod Maharu Kadam, Age 31 years, Occu.Service, R/o Savkheda, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon 2. Sangita Ravindra Pawar, Age 34 years, Occu.Service, R/o Upa-Zilla Hospital, Near Bus Stand, Chopda, District Jalgaon ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of School and Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Kisan Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Savkheda, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon, Through its President 3. Head Master, K.D.Patil High School, Savkheda, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS Mr.Girish Rane, Advocate for petitioners Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 & 4 Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 22nd July 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 23.11.2009 issued by respondent No.3. 3. The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus. Pursuant to an advertisement which came to be published in daily newspaper “Gavkari” on 24.2.2006, the petitioners submitted applications for the post of Shikshan Sevaks as the petitioners were duly qualified. The petitioners were interviewed and came to be appointed w.e.f. 27.2.2006 to 26.2.2009 i.e. for a period of three years. The petitioner No.2 came to be appointed w.e.f. 16.6.2006 till 15.6.2009 i.e. for a period of three years. The respondent No.4 had granted the necessary approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 and 2 to the post of Shikshan Sevaks for a period of three years. Upon completion of the period of three years, petitioners came to be appointed as full time 3 Assistant Teachers w.e.f. 28.2.2009 and 2.7.2009, respectively. On 3.7.2009, the fourth respondent granted approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher and by order dated 21.8.2009, approval came to be granted by the fourth respondent to the appointment of petitioner No.2 on the post of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, on 23.11.2009, the respondent No.4 has issued the impugned communication. 4. By virtue of the impugned communication, the respondent No.4 has stated that pendency of certain matter before the Court was not disclosed by the Head Master when the proposal was submitted and accordingly, the approval granted to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 came to be kept in abeyance until further orders. The petitioners, thus being aggrieved by the said impugned order have filed the present petition. 5. It appears that Writ Petition No.3789 of 2009 had been filed by one Hemant Dattatray Kulkarni and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. which came to be decided by us on 14.9.2009. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners therein had requested for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to submit a representation to the respondent – Education Officer and the writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid 4 liberty. Mr.Rane, learned Counsel for the petitioners states on instructions that a representation has been duly submitted by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3789 of 2009 and the said representation is pending. It is further urged before us that certain appeals in respect of the acceptance and rejection of the change report of the rival groups of management is also pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nasik. 6. The respondent No.4 had granted approval to the appointment of the petitioners. According to us, the respondent No.4 cannot pass such orders in law by which he can keep the approval in abeyance. After giving opportunity of hearing, the respondent ought to have passed the necessary orders. In the present case, since the appeals are pending, it would be extremely harsh to keep the approval granted by respondent No. 4 in abeyance. This would practically amount to reviewing his own earlier order. We also find that before issuance of such order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners and it was incumbent on respondent No.4 to have granted such a hearing as the order impugned in the present petition visits the petitioners with severe consequences. 7. In the result, therefore, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, learned Assistant 5 Govt.Pleader on behalf of respondent No.4 states that in the event it is disclosed during the hearing of the representation or on account of the judgment of the appellate Court i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nasik that the petitioners had not been appointed in accordance with law, liberty may be granted to respondent No.4 to take such action as is available in law. 8. We, accordingly, allow this petition with the liberty as prayed for by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3574.10wp)