SUBHASHCHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for hearing. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Education Officer in view of the complaint of respondent nos. 5 & 6, made an inquiry and passed an order dated 20th February 2006 thereby observing that the procedure in respect of the recruitment was not followed and ultimately withdrew the approval granted to the appointment of petitioners. The said order is challenged by the petitioners by filing this petition.

(3.) Basically what we find is that the Education Officer has committed a gross error in entertaining the complaint application in 2005 from respondent nos. 5 & 6 when the petitioners appointments were approved and they had attained permanency in the employment. Apart from that the Education Officer should have found that the application given by respondent nos. 5 & 6 is belated one and as an after-thought. If respondent nos. 5 & 6 were given assurances by respondent no.4 - management in the year 1999 that they would be absorbed in the secondary section, then in that circumstance they should have come forward challenging the appointment of petitioners in the year 1999-2000 itself when the petitioners were appointed. However, surprisingly from 1999 to 2005 they observed silence and for the first time in 2005 they started to make grievance in that regard. The said grievance, even assumed to be genuine, is belated one and by the lapse of time they have lost any right, if at all available to them on the basis of the alleged representation made by the management. Apart from that after lapse of 4 years it is very easy to say that the management has given an oral assurance when there is nothing on record to support such contention. Therefore we find that having realised that they have lost a chance of getting employment in the secondary section of respondent no.4, they have developed a cock and bull story which is absolutely an after-thought, to challenge the appointments of the petitioners. This aspect should have been seriously considered by the Education Officer. However for the reasons best know to the Education Officer, the Education Officer fell pray to this after though case and has passed the impugned order.