HANAMANT GURSINDDHAPPA CHOUGHULEQ Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th March 1989 passed by the Education Officer,Zilla Parishad, Solapur, i.e. Respondent No.l cancelling the approval granted for petitioner's appointment.

(2.) THE petitioner is B.P.Ed. and being eligible for appointment as a Physical Instructor, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the 2nd Respondent, applied for a post of teacher in the said High School being qualified and thus eligible was interviewed and was selected on 9th August 1988. He was given an appointment letter appointing him with effect from 12th August 1988. His appointment as a Physical Education Teacher was communica-ted to the 1st Respondent as it was subject to his approval and by his letter dated 17th March 1989, the 1st Respondent approved his appoint-ment. It is the petitioner's contention that he assumed duty on 12th August 1988 and continued in the service without any complaint being lodged against him. However, by a communication dated 25th March 1989 i.e the impugned order, without any rhyme or reason, the 1st Respondent cancelled the approval earlier granted and hence the present petition. It may be mentioned here that at the admission stage itself the interim order was passed directing the Respondents to pay the arrears of the salary not paid to the petitioner and further ad-interim order was also passed whereby the petitioner has been allowed to continue in the same service with salary which is being paid.

(3.) AS far as the Respondents are concerned, none of them has bothered to even file a reply. Although Mr.Sonawane, the learned A.G.P. is appearing in the matter for Respondent No.3, none of the other Respondents are represented. No affidavit in reply is filed by any of the Respondents, with the result, we do not know on what ground the present petition is being resisted. In fact when Mr.Sonawane was asked, he fairly submitted that this was the concern of the 1st Respondent and thus he also could not throw any light on the matter. However, considering the impugned order, it ex facie appears to contain no reasons. There is nothing to suggest even in the said letter as to what has prompted the 1st Respondent to cancel the approval earlier granted. It does not contain anything to show whether any say was invited from the petitioner. We cannot understand as to how the approval once granted, meaning thereby that the petitioner was found eligible, subsequently becomes a subject-matter of disapproval. In this view of the matter, we do not see any defence in the matter. The petitioner has made out a case of grant of relief claimed in the petition. Petition thus made absolute in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the petition. Rule thus made absolute with no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.