1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 235 of 2011 Gajanan and ors v. The EO (Sec) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.S. Chandurkar, Adv for petitioners Mr A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent Coram: D.D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 28th January 2011 1. Heard Mr A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr A.S. Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent. 2. The following facts are brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for petitioners : (1) The petitioners no. 1 to 3 were appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the year 2009. Approval was granted by the Education Officer to the said posts vide order/ communication dated 26.2.2009. (2) The said approval came to be cancelled vide order dated 18.8.2009. Petitioners challenged the order of cancellation of approval dated 18.8.2009 by filing Writ Petition No. 4692 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 2 25.1.2010 whereby order dated 18.8.2009 came to be cancelled and matter was remitted back to the Education Officer for reconsideration of issue for grant/refusal of approval afresh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after remand, the Deputy Director of Education passed order dated 29.5.2010, once again confirming the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Education Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Deputy Director of Education had filed an affidavit in reply in Writ Petition No. 2957 of 2010 and in paragraph 4 of that affidavit, it was specifically stated that the answering respondent i.e. Deputy Director of Education shall immediately cancel the order dated 29.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that if the order dated 29.5.2010 has been cancelled by the Deputy Director of Education, order dated 26.2.2009 whereby the approval was granted to the petitioners would automatically stand restored. 5. On the backdrop of the above-referred facts and circumstances, it is evident that if the last order dated 29.5.2010 whereby order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Education Officer came to be confirmed was withdrawn by the Deputy Director of Education, then the order dated 26.2.2009 gets revived and stands restored. In the circumstances, communication dated 3 1.9.2010 (Annexure-R) loses its significance. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. wp JUDGE JUDGE joshi