1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3277 OF 2007 Prakash s/o. Kisanrao Limbekar, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Jetwan Nagar, Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Smt. M.R. Jamdhade, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. Yogita M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Clerk on 09-09-1999 in school run by respondent No. 4 and was working as such, till the year 2006. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to absorb him in some other school and pay the salary. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No.3. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8690 of 2005 dated 12th September, 2006 (Coram : P.V. Hardas, and R.M. Savant, JJ.), wherein this Court had directed the Deputy Director of Education to consider the issue in respect of appointment of one Smt. Sarkale and the petitioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Education passed order dated 11-04-2007, copy of which was forwarded by the Education Officer to the learned A.G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. After going through the record and 3 appointment orders, the Deputy Director reached conclusion that the appointment of Smt. Sarkale was not in accordance with law. It was noticed by the Deputy Director of Education that the names of bogus students were shown in the attendance register. Therefore, recovery was directed against the Management on various grounds. Ultimately, the Deputy Director of Education concluded that in view of the students strength shown by the school, the post of Clerk could not have been sanctioned in the school. Obviously, the petitioner claims absorption in the said school, as Clerk. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the appointment of Smt. Sarkale was held to be illegal and the petitioner could be considered, as appointed, in accordance with law and be absorbed in some other school. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushila Bhikaji Sawant vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(2) Mh. L.J. 841. 4 6. The learned Counsel Shri. V.S. Panpatte submitted that in view of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, it is clear that no approval was granted to the post of Clerk and therefore, issue of absorption of the petitioner does not arise. 7. We have perused the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO. 8690 of 2005 dated 12th September 2006 and reply filed by respondent No.3. Prima facie, we are not convinced with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education, after going through the record, concluded that in view of the students strength shown by the school, the post of Clerk could not have been sanctioned in the school. The petitioner was not accorded approval. The petitioner claims salary from the Management. We may observe that in case, the petitioner wants to pursue the issue of payment of salary, then the petitioner may resort to the alternative 5 remedy, as permissible in law. 8. We do not find that this is a fit case to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are disputed facts. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUNE10/wp3277.07