1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1438 OF 2010 Anusaya D/o Maruti Sase - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Santosh S.Jadhavar,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KG Patil,AGP for Resp.Nos.1 & 2; Mr.SS Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp.No.3; Mr.LV Sangeet, Advocate for Resp.No.5. ----- CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 23rd September, 2010. COURT’S ORDER (PER:-B.R.GAVAI,J.) 1) Heard. 2) By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the action on the part of Respondent No.2 – Education Officer, thereby granting approval to the appointment of the Respondent No.5 – Smt. Surekha Dhondiba Gade in B.Ed. pay scale trained Graduate teacher. 2 3) Shri Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that since the post, which fallen vacant, was a post of a teacher, teaching Marathi and history subjects and since the petitioner was qualified to teach Marathi and History subjects; and on the other hand the respondent no.5 was not qualified to teach Marathi subject, the approval in question ought to have been accorded in favour of the petitioner and not in favour of the respondent no.5. The learned Counsel in this respect relies upon a communication dated 27th July, 2001 addressed by the Director of Education to the Education Officer. 4) Shri Deshmukh and Shri Sangeet, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respective respondents, support the action of the Education officer in granting approval to the appointment of Respondent No.5. 5) It can be seen that initially the management had submitted a proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner, however, since the said proposal was rejected, the management subsequently forwarded a proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the Respondent No.5, which was considered and accepted by the Education Officer. 3 6) Indisputably permanent approval has been granted in favour of petitioner in B.Ed. pay scale w.e.f. 13.06.1998 whereas in case of Respondent No.5 such approval has been accorded from the date of her appointment, i.e. w.e.f. 11.1.1997. It is thus clear that the Respondent No.5 is senior than the present petition in the cadre of B.Ed. trained Graduate teachers. The Education officer has rightly followed the principle of seniority while granting approval to the appointment of the respondent no.5. 7) In that view of the matter, we find no error in the order of the Education Officer, granting approval to the appointment of the Respondent No.5., to warrant interference. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/