The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval of the Education Officer was not a mandatory condition for admission to the Bachelor of Education course as per the information brochure.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner assails the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2-university thereby cancelling his admission to a course of Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.). Consequently, he is also held ineligible for B. Ed. degree and his degree has been confiscated.

3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that :

The petitioner was initially appointed as untrained teacher in Sant Tukaram Vidyamandir Kandari, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna by letter dated 30.06.1992 against a leave vacancy during the period 01.07.1992 to 30.04.1993. A temporary approval for such appointment was granted by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna on 05.11.1992. Later, he came to be appointed in Sant Tukaram Vidyalaya Dhanora, Tq. Jintur vide appointment order dated 10.06.1993 for the period from 11.06.1993 to 11.06.1996. The appointment was on temporary basis. The Head Master of Sant Tukaram Vidyalaya Dhanora, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani issued no objection certificate to him for securing admission for B. Ed. course for the year 1996-1998. He was accordingly admitted to B. Ed. course by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik for the academic years 1996-1998. He underwent the course and completed the same in May 1998. In pursuance of the qualification of B. Ed. acquired by him, permanent approval came to be granted in his favour by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani vide order dated 30.03.1999 with effect from 06.07.1998. By order dated 17.05.2000, the university proposed to cancel his admission to B. Ed. course as well as his degree. Following the decision of the university, the respondent No. 4- school proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner in the year 2001. He filed Writ Petition No. 271 of 2002 challenging the said decision, which came to be allowed vide order dated 27.08.2014 holding that the decision was arrived at without following principles of natural justice. Therefore, the decision of the university was set aside while granting it liberty to undertake a fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. It was further directed that even though the decision of the university was set aside, the consequences that followed would remain unchanged.

4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2014 in Writ Petition No. 271 of 2002, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 10.09.2014. An enquiry was conducted by the respondent No. 2-university, in which he participated. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 19.06.2015. Since no decision was taken by the respondent No. 2-university, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3946 of 2017, which was disposed of on 26.02.2018 recording statement on behalf of the university that final decision would be taken. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed on 14.08.2018 cancelling his admission to B. Ed. course and confiscating his degree.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 60 of 2002 before the School Tribunal, Latur challenging his termination, which came to be dismissed, which order is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 1435 of 2007 pending before this Court.

6. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Aute, the learned counsel has submitted that the decision taken by the university is erroneous. He relied upon the information brochure for Bachelor of Education Programme published by the respondent No. 2- university for 1996-1998 to contend that the petitioner was fully eligible to seek admission to the course. He would submit that his initial appointment during 01.07.1992 to 30.04.1993 was approved by the Education Officer. His subsequent appointment during 11.06.1993 to 11.06.1996 was on a sanctioned post. He would contend that the Headmaster of the school had duly recommended petitioner’s case for undergoing the B. Ed. course. After successfu