IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3578 OF 2009. Kisan Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Savkheda through its President Dhudaku Tilakchand Patil. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Siddhartha B. Yawalkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for R.Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondents. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing at the stage of admission. 3. This petition essentially takes exception to the order passed by the Education Officer dated 9th March, 2009. According to the petitioner, one Ganpat Asman Baisane was appointed as Head Master being senior most teacher as per the seniority list and also because he was eligible and qualified for the post of Headmaster. The Education Officer vide order dated 4th February, 2009 granted approval to the said appointment of Shri Ganpat Baisane. However, subsequently, on 9th March, 2009, the Education Officer cancelled the initial approval granted in respect of appointment of Shri Ganpat Baisane without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that the said decision was taken on the basis of some complaint received from one Mr. M.N. Patil, who pointed out that there was dispute regarding the management pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He asserted that the appointment of Shri Baisane as Headmaster was not in accordance with law. Acting on the said complaint, the authority unilaterally cancelled the order of approval in favour of Shri Baisane vide impugned order dated 9th March, 2009. 4. After having considered the rival submissions, we have no hesitation in taking the view that once the approval was granted by the Education Officer on 4th February, 2009 to the appointment of Shri Baisane, the question of unilaterally cancelling the same does not arise. Even if the Education Officer intended to take any action, was obliged to give notice to the management as also to the said Shri Baisane and to proceed only after giving the concerned parties opportunity of hearing. On this count alone, the order impugned before us dated 9th March, 2009 cannot sustain. Besides, we are of the opinion that the mere fact that there is dispute between the management and the said issue is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner alone cannot be ground for not granting approval to the employee who is actually working and discharging duties of teacher or Headmaster, as the case may be. The proposal regarding approval has to be considered by the Education Officer on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the pendency of dispute between the management before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Indeed, it would be open to the Education Officer in matters where there is controversy about the management, who in fact, has appointed the employee, to grant approval to such appointment subject to final decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner about the status of the management, who appointed such employee. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order dated 9th March, 2009 is set aside. Consequently, the earlier order dated 4th February, 2009 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner Shri Baisane as Headmaster would stand revived and will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Petition disposed of on the above terms [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*