:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2006. Subhashchandra Mishra, Age 38 years, Occu: Head-Master, r/a: Shweta Housing Society, Shramik Nagar, Satpur, Nashik. ..Petitioner. V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nashik. 3. The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nasik. 4. Nashik Hindi Sabha, Nasik, Through: its Working President, Krishnanand Bhavan, Plot No.16, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Rd., Nashik. 5. Smt. Suvarna Sahebrao Wagh, Age: 32 years, Occu: Service, r/a: Satpur Colony, Savarkar Nagar, Nasik. 6. Smt. Hirabai Ramdas Choudhary, Age: 35 years, Occu: Service, r/a: Satpur, Housing Society, Nasik. ..Respondents. --- ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2885 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 2885 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 2885 OF 2006 AND ALONG WITH AND ALONG WITH AND ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2006. Mr. S. G. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Karnik for the respondent nos. 5 & 6. :2: :2: :2: Mr. A. I. Patel, A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : April 22, 2008. DATE : April 22, 2008. DATE : April 22, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (S.B.MHASE,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (S.B.MHASE,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (S.B.MHASE,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for hearing. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in all these petitions are the employees of the respondent no.4, viz., Nasik Hindi Sabha, Nasik. Petitioners are working in the secondary schools run by the respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 was initially running K.G. to primary section. Respondent nos. 5 & 6 are the untrained teachers appointed in primary section. They possessed qualification of B.A., B.Ed., and not D.Ed, as is required to work in primary section. Later on in the year 1999 permission to run the the secondary section was granted and the petitioners were appointed in that section. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2894 of 2006 was appointed as Head-Master and petitioners in other petitions were appointed as Teachers. Their appointments were approved by the Education Officer - respondent no.3 in the year 1999-2000. They were initially appointed as probationers and in due course they became permanent employees. Thereafter in 2005 respondent nos.5 & 6 made grievance to the Education Officer that respondent nos. 5 & 6 were :3: :3: :3: already working with respondent no.4 - Management as untrained teachers in primary section but they were trained teachers to be appointed in secondary section and therefore when the permission was granted to respondent no.4 to run the secondary section they should have been absorbed in the secondary section of respondent no.4. It is their case that in view of the oral assurance given by respondent no.4, they did not apply when the recruitment was carried out for the secondary section and thus the management has played a fraud upon them. 2. The Education Officer in view of the complaint of respondent nos. 5 & 6, made an inquiry and passed an order dated 20th February 2006 thereby observing that the procedure in respect of the recruitment was not followed and ultimately withdrew the approval granted to the appointment of petitioners. The said order is challenged by the petitioners by filing this petition. 3. Basically what we find is that the Education Officer has committed a gross error in entertaining the complaint application in 2005 from respondent nos. 5 & 6 when the petitioners’ appointments were approved and they had attained permanency in the employment. Apart from that the Education Officer should have found that the application given by respondent nos. 5 & 6 is belated one and as an after-thought. If respondent nos. 5 & 6 were given assurances by respondent no.4 - management in :4: :4: :4: the year 1999 that they would be absorbed in the secondary section, then in that circumstance they should have come forward challenging the appointment of petitioners in the year 1999-2000 itself when the petitioners were appointed. However, surprisingly from 1999 to 2005 they observed silence and for the first time in 2005 they started to make grievance in that regard. The said grievance, even assumed to be genuine, is belated one and by the lapse of time they have lost any right, if at all available to them on the basis of the alleged representation made by the management. Apart from that after lapse of 4 years it is very easy to say that the management has given an oral assurance when there is nothing on record to support such contention. Therefore we find that having realised that they have lost a chance of getting employment in the secondary section of respondent no.4, they have developed a cock and bull story which is absolutely an after-thought, to challenge the appointments of the petitioners. This aspect should have been seriously considered by the Education Officer. However for the reasons best know to the Education Officer, the Education Officer fell pray to this after though case and has passed the impugned order. 4. It is pertinent to note that the same Education Officer on 3.10.2005 had informed that once the permanent status has been granted to the petitioners it will not be proper to withdraw the same. Having taken :5: :5: :5: such a stance the Education Officer has taken a somersault and has passed the impugned order. We find that the impugned order is absolutely bad and illegal and suffers from non application of mind. In the circumstances, Writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20th February 2006, passed by the Education Officer is hereby quashed and set aside. Education Officer is hereby directed to re-issue appropriate orders of approval to the appointments of petitioners from the date of their initial appointments. Such orders shall be issued within two weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) :2008/aak/..