JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable Forthwith. Learned AGPs waive service for Respondents-State. Mr. Prasanna Shahane, learned counsel waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. By consent, the Petitions are taken up for final hearing.

2. The Petitions involve common facts and issues, are therefore heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers/ Shikshan Sevaks and Peons in respective Institutions. The Education Officer had granted approval to the appointment of the Petitioners. On satisfactory completion of three years period as Shikshan Sevak, the Management submitted a proposal to the Education Officer for approval and the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the Petitioners as Assistant Teachers. By order dated 13/06/2017 the Education Officer cancelled the approval. The said order was challenged by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.8818 of 2017 with other connected Petitions.

4. It is relevant to note here that similar orders were challenged by the other teachers in Writ Petition No.10133 of 2016 with other connected petitions. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B. R. Gavai, as his lordship then was and Riyaz Chagla, JJ.) in Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.10133 of 2016 and other matters had set aside the orders passed by the Education Officer mainly on the ground that the Education Officer was not empowered to review the order unless vested with the power of review. The Division Bench had observed that if the Education Officer had granted approval to the Petitioners' appointment, may be erroneously, the same cannot be recalled and that a contrary order cannot be passed except in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression. It was held that when most of the Petitioners had already put in their services for 11 years, the impugned order would amount to penalizing them for no fault on their part. The Division Bench clarified that if the Education Officer is of the view that in some of the schools backlog of reserved category candidate is not properly maintained, the Education Officer would always be empowered to insist that hereinafter no candidate belonging to open category shall be filled in unless the quota of reserved category candidates as per the requirement of MEPS Act/Rules is fulfilled.

5. Following this judgment, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Anup Mohta and Bharti Dangre, JJ.) allowed the earlier Petitions filed by these Petitioners by judgment dated 14/08/2017 in Shishir LUadhar Lele and Ors v/s. Satish Pradhan Dnyanasadhna College of Arts, Commerce and Science and Ors. The relevant paragraph reads thus:- "In view of the above, there is a force in the contention so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned AGP therefore on instructions, conceded to the position of law and makes statement that the concerned respondents/ officers/ authorities shall recall the impuged order/action and related proceeding, if any, dated 27th June, 2017 or such other dates as early as possible, preferably within two weeks and they will also recall/withdraw their impugned action and /or orders of cancellation of approval in question. Further they will grant/continue to provide all service benefits/ entitlement to the petitioners or such teachers." The statement made by the learned AGP was accepted and in view of withdrawal of the impugned orders the concerned Education Officers were directed to grant all consequential benefits including release of salary.

6. After withdrawing the earlier order of cancellation of approval, Respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Education issued notices to the Petitioners to show cause why the approval should not be canceled. The show cause notice states that the individual approvals granted to the Petitioners were scrutinized by the Commissioner (Education) M.S. Pune, and it was prima facie seen that there is irregu