IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Letters Patent Appeal No. 555 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 3119 of 2009 Zahed and ors v. State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Adv for appellants Coram : S.A. Bobde and P.D. Kode, JJ Dated : 17th March 2010 1. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for appellants. This Letters Patent Appeal by appellants is filed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 5.11.2009 by which the learned single Judge has upheld the recovery that is ordered under Section 11 of the Bombay Local Funds Audit Act, 1930 against the appellants. 2. Appellants are councillors of Municipal Council, Rajura. They apparently made appointments to 127 posts though those appointments were said to be not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the posts were neither approved nor sanctioned. In these circumstances, recovery was ordered against the appellants. 3. The learned single Judge has rejected the challenge to the recovery on the ground that the posts were not approved and the appointments were made without following the procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the said Act. Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it can be demonstrated that the procedure, in fact, was followed by issuing advertisement etc. and, therefore, the appellants who had made appointments for laudable object of education ought not to be penalised by directing recovery against them. 4. We, however, find that there is no merit in the appellants’ case since there is a clear and categorical finding by the learned single Judge that 157 posts were not sanctioned. Obviously, therefore, even if it can be demonstrated that the appointments were made by following the procedure prescribed by law, it is of no avail to the appellants if the posts were not sanctioned. The appellants had no business to make appointments or cause appointments to be made to posts which were not sanctioned and impose financial burden of these posts on the Municipal Council. We, therefore, see no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal which we hereby dismiss. Judge Judge Hsj