: 1 : wp.8624.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8624 OF 2010 Shgri Anil Mahipati Patil .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 Mr.Sameer S. Tambekar for Resp. No.3 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. Affidavit in reply has been filed by Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 and, therefore, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. By an order dated 5.2.2009, the Education Officer (Secondary) informed the Headmaster of Shri Warnamai High School that on account of reduction of the students' strength in the academic year : 2 : wp.8624.2010 2008-2009 one teacher from category C would be rendered surplus and consequently on 16.6.2010, the headmaster issued an order informing the petitioner that he had been declared surplus as he is the juniormost secondary school teacher. 4. As per the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Education Officer, the strength of students in 5th to 10th standard has been reduced in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 but that reduction in the number of each class is less 50. It has been further stated that the strength of the students in 8th to 10th standard in the academic year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 was as under: Academic year Strength of students 8th standard 9th standard 10th standard 2009-2010 32 31 47 2010-2011 26 25 35 5. There is no dispute that in the academic year 2006-2007 there were one division of standard 5 to 10 and one additional division of standard 9. But thereafter there has been no reduction in the divisions of any class and it appears that from standards 5 to 10, there is only a single division in each class. : 3 : wp.8624.2010 6. If that be so, there cannot be any reduction of teachers warranted on account of the reduction in the strength of students. The impugned order passed by the Education Officer is therefore, without application of mind and is not supported from the record. The said order is unsustainable and, hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the premises, the petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the Education Officer and the consequent order dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Headmaster are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly, No costs. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)