1 wp1853.09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1853 OF 2009 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | orders or | Court's or Judge's Orders directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Mrs. U.T. Pathan holding for Shri. T.W. Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri I.D. Maniyar holding for Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri Zareeta Al Amoodi, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & SHRI M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date : 28th June, 2011. . The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by the Education Officer, refusing to grant approval to his appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner is qualified with the B.A. and B.Ed. degrees. It appears that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. Later, he was appointed as a trained graduate teacher. The respondent-Management has found that the petitioner's work was satisfactory, and therefore, it sought approval to his appointment as an Assistant Teacher. At the same time, the respondent-Management sought relaxation of 2 wp1853.09 the age limit prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 for appointing the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. 2. The Education Officer has refused to grant approval on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified with a Diploma in Education, which is compulsory for persons, teaching in the Primary Schools. 3. We have perused the pleadings and we find that the petitioner could have been appointed as an assistant teacher and approved as such, in view of the Judgment in the case of Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari V/s State of Maharashtra and others passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 4632 of 1999 on 6th May, 2004, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others V/s Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari reported in 2007 A.I.R. SCW 1321. It has been held that 25% of the teachers teaching in 5th to 7th standard which are attached to the primary schools, could be appointed, although they did not have the H.S.C. D.Ed. qualifications, as long as, they were 3 wp1853.09 graduates and had a B.Ed. degree. 4. The Education Officer has filed an affidavit indicating that the petitioner was not appointed for various reasons, which do not find any place in the impugned order. These reasons include the fact that the petitioner has crossed the age limit for appointment as a teacher. 5. It is now well settled that the Authority who passes an order can not supplement it with the reasons contained in the affidavit filed by him. The order must speak for itself. We would have been justified in allowing the Writ Petition. However, in the present case, as seen from the proposal sent by the Management, the petitioner has crossed the age limit, and therefore, the the age limit could be relaxed as stipulated in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service ) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal sent by the Respondent-Management for 4 wp1853.09 approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an assistant teacher i.e. a trained graduate teacher, within 8 weeks from today. 7. The Petition disposed of, accordingly. ( M. T. JOSHI, J. ) (NISHITA MHATRE, J) ga s/wp1853.09