1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.110 of 2009 (Jitendra Waman Telange v. The State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Ms Vaishali Tanna, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for R- 1 and 2. Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for R- 3 and 5. Shri Nilesh Adbe, Advocate for R- 4. Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for Intervenor. Coram : D.D. Sinha & A.P. Bhangale, JJ. Dated : 10 th July, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 11-12-2008, whereby respondent No.2 has granted approval to respondent No.4 as Hostel Superintendent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned counsel for 2 respondent Nos.3 and 5 have alleged that there was no proposal from the Management for consideration of grant of approval so far as respondent No.4 is concerned. The learned AGP states that since respondent No.4 was found to be eligible for grant of approval as Hostel Superintendent, the impugned order came to be passed. Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the Management, states that the services of respondent No.4 are terminated by the Management with effect from 30-4-2007. The learned counsel further specifically stated that at no point of time, the proposal of respondent No.4 was forwarded by the Management to respondent No.2 - the Social Welfare Officer for consideration of grant of approval after his termination. However, since the petitioner was appointed on the post of Hostel Superintendent with effect from 10-7-2007, the respondent- Management forwarded the proposal of the 3 petitioner for grant of approval only, which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 11-12-2008. Considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, it appears that there is some discrepancy so far as the fact of sending proposal by the Management to the Social Welfare Officer for grant of approval in respect of respondent No.4 is concerned. Similarly, it is submitted by the counsel for the Management that the services of respondent No.4 were terminated with effect from 30-4-2007. It also appears that the petitioner was appointed as Hostel Superintendent with effect from 10-7-2007 and, therefore, the proposal of the petitioner was appeared to have been forwarded by the Management. Be that as it may, this is a fit case where the Social Welfare Officer is required to 4 reconsider the issue of grant of approval afresh after taking into consideration of the above- referred facts and circumstances as well as other connected facts and circumstances, by following the principles of natural justice within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Social Welfare Officer for reconsideration as per the observations made in this order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. In view of the aforesaid order, the application for intervention is also disposed of. Judge Judge pdl