PRASAD RAJARAM MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The Respondents have filed their Affidavits in Reply. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 2/3/2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent-Education Officer of the 1st Respondent-State, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. The 4th Respondent is the Headmaster of 3rd Respondent-Management.

(3.) The Petition is ambiguity personified. It is replete with conflicting statements. Confusion is worse confounded, for the contesting Respondents make conflicting averments made in their own respective Reply Affidavits. There is contradiction all around. Astonishingly, the contentions of each side score a self-goal and defeat their own stands.