Kambli 1 wp4602.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4602 OF 2010 ... Shri Anil Ganpat Umbaraje ..Petitioner v/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Sanjeev B. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & N.D.Deshpande,JJ DATED: 21st September, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By order dated 24-8-2009 the Kambli 2 wp4602.10 Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Head Master of a recognised private school, which is receiving grant-in-aid. Promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Head Master was challenged before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal by order dated 25-8-2009 stayed the order of promotion. Then the application for interim relief filed before the School Tribunal was finally decided by order dated 6-3-2010 and the stay order granted by the tribunal was vacated. By order dated 26-3-2010 the Education Officer approved the appointment of the Petitioner as Deputy Head Master with effect from 25-8-2009. However, it appears that on 11-3-2010 the Deputy Director of Education wrote a letter to the Education Officer that since the Appeal against the promotion of the Petitioner is pending, his appointment should not be approved and acting Kambli 3 wp4602.10 on that letter the Education Officer without issuing any notice to the Petitioner, by order dated 13-4-2010 cancelled the approval granted by him. The Petitioner is before us challenging that order. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Counsel appearing for the Education Officer. In our opinion, the order dated 13-4-2010 has to be set aside for two reasons; firstly, merely because the appeal is pending against the promotion order, approval cannot be withheld, specially when the School Tribunal has vacated the interim order, which was initially granted staying the promotion order; and secondly once the order granting approval is made, it could not have been cancelled without granting the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In our opinion, Kambli 4 wp4602.10 therefore, the order dated 13-4-2010 will have to be set aside. 4. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13-4-2010 is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)