The central legal point established in the judgment is the accountability of responsible officers for the loss of public revenue and the directive for an enquiry to determine the actions of the petitioners and their Managements.

(Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P. Rane, Ms. A.R. Kulkarni and Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.Ps. for respondents.

2. Petitioners are from Yavatmal District and employees of various private management. They have been given employment as Shikshan Sevaks up to June, 2014. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.6612 of 2015 did file a Pursis St. No.6425 of 2016 to withdraw the petition but later on has chosen to press their challenge.

3. Petitioners question the orders dated 18.11.2015, 20.11.2015 and 26.11.2015 passed by respondent no.3 Eduction Officer canceling the approval given to their appointments earlier.

4. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel invites our attention to the impugned orders to show that the reason for cancellation is (1) gap of less than 15 days between the date of publication of advertisement and date of interview and (2) non absorption of surplus teachers. He contends that petitioners cannot be blamed for any of these lacunae. He further argues that all petitioners except in Writ Petition Nos. 165 and 232 of 2016 were given approval initially and that approval has been cancelled by the impugned orders. The orders do not show proper application of mind.

5. Learned A.G.Ps., appearing for respondents are relying upon the reply affidavit filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the matter. They point out that the terms and conditions stipulated in the communication dated 13.06.2014, were not satisfied, no steps to absorb surplus teachers were taken; directly and hurriedly direct recruitment was resorted to. According to them, in this situation, employment provided is not in accordance with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, approval given earlier has been cancelled.

6. It is further pointed out that at the relevant time an officer from lower cadre was officiating as Education Officer, who misused his position and power. Appropriate departmental action has been initiated against him in the matter.

7. This Court has on 15.03.2016 passed the following order :

“ Learned AGP is seeking time to file reply. Advocate Parchure, points out that before appointments required prior permission from Education Officer was obtained and then recruitment as per law has been undertaken. According to him, thereafter approval has been questioned on the ground that surplus teachers were available. During hearing, it has become clear that in a PIL this Court had directed respondent no.1 to make operational a website which can be used by surplus teachers as also management. Advocate Parchure submits that website was made operational some time in the year 2014.

In this situation, we direct respondents to file their reply pointing out [1] how the said website was used while granting permission to petitioner to proceed further with the recruitments & [2] the procedure followed while permitting the management to advertise the vacancy.

List after three weeks.”

8. Shri Parchure, learned counsel submits that in PIL he is appointed as Amicus to assist the Court. The PIL was before this Court on 16.06.2016, and has been adjourned for one week.

9. In PIL, compliance with the directions issued to provide website where all vacancies, as also available surplus teacher can be corelated, is being looked into. Here, though the communication dated 13.06.2014 sent by the Deputy Secretary of State of Maharashtra to Commissioner (Education) stipulates that all surplus teachers must first be absorbed. According to the impugned order and also looking to the reply, such teachers have not been so absorbed. Perusal of the reply affidavit shows that according to respondent nos. 2 and 3, as per staff approval for academic Session 2012-13, 1 assistant teacher was surplus and is not absorbed till date. For academic year 2013-14, there were 152 surplus teachers in Yavatmal Districts and out of 152 surplus teachers, 105 surplus teachers have been absorbed, while 67 are still wait