T. V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed for challenging the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, Respondent No.2 by which the approval given to the Petitioner in respect of his appointment on the post of Shikshan Sevak for Respondent No.4/school is cancelled.

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. Learned counsel for institution supported the Petitioner.

4. The Respondent No.4 runs a Government aided primary school. On 1st January, 2012 in the local newspaper by name Mahasagar published in Nanded, one post of Shikshan Sevak was advertised by Respondent No.4. The post was shown to be for open category candidate and eligibility condition was S.S.C. D.Ed. The candidates were expected to come with application and record for interview in school on 15th January, 2012 and the school is situated at Kinwat. It is the contention of the Petitioner that 10 candidates had come for interview and from them, the Petitioner came to be selected. The Petitioner had passed 12th standard examination and he had completed D.Ed at the relevant time.

5. Copies of documents like joining report of Petitioner are produced. The record shows that appointment order was issued in favour of Petitioner by Respondent No.4 under Order No.140 dated 15th January, 2012, the date of interview and he had applied to the school immediately for permission to join the duty. In the appointment letter, it was shown by Respondent No.4 that the appointment was to be made on the post of Shikshan Sevak for the period of 3 years with effect from 22nd January, 2012 and the Petitioner was to get Rs. 3,000/- as fixed pay during that period and only after satisfactory completion of the period of three years as Shikshan Sevak, he was to get appointment of primary teacher.

6. Copy of order of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded dated 7th September, 2013 is produced by the Petitioner to show that as per the sanction of unit staff given in respect of school, Respondent No.4, on 5th March, 2013, for the year 2012-13, approval was given to the appointment made on the post of Shikshan Sevak and that was as per the list supplied by the institution. This correspondence of Education Officer even does not show the outward number of the communication of Management and even the date of letter of Management sent to Education Officer for seeking approval. With the communication of the Education Officer, there is information in tabular form in respect of the persons appointed and only on the basis of this documents it can be said that approval was given with effect from 22nd January, 2012 on the fixed pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month.

7. One Mr. Mudholkar, President of Teachers Association, Nanded had made a complaint to the Director of Education on 10th November, 2012 that the Education Officer (Primary) of Nanded had indulged in illegal activity and the approvals given by him in respect of various appointments were illegal. There was grievance that he was not following the policies of the Government, which include the policy to absorb surplus teachers first in Government aided private schools. It appears that even before coming into force the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there were many surplus teachers and the number had increased due to implementation of this new Act. In view of this circumstance, there was even Resolution issued by Government dated 2nd May, 2012 to prevent appointments of new teachers in the Government aided schools and these schools were expected to first absorb the surplus teachers of Nanded district. The record, which this Court is mentioning also shows that the Education Officer was expected to see that surplus teachers were absorb first and no approval was given to the new appointments.

8. Correspondence dated 29th April 2013, made by the Director of Education with the Deputy Director of Education, Nanded shows that the Director had asked him to make inquiry into the allegations. It was mentioned that in the previous c