JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP for respondents no. 1 and 2, Mr. Viral Salot, learned advocate for respondent no. 3 and Mr. C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate for respondent no. 5. Though served, none appears for respondent no. 4.

2. The facts in this petition need not be reiterated as they have been extensively referred in the order dated 07.08.2020 which reads as under:

"1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Jha learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Niddhi Vyas learned AGP for the State and Mr. Viral Salot learned advocate for respondent no.3.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with the respondent No.3 school since 1997. Because of the reduction of classes of Standard 11 and 12 in the respondent no.3 school, the petitioner was declared surplus by an order dated 18.09.2019. The petitioner's case is that unless and until he is absorbed in other school, the respondent continues to be liable to pay salary to him. On 24.09.2019, the District Education Officer passed an order directing that the respondent no.2-school absorbs the petitioner. The petitioner was relieved by the respondent no.3 on 25.09.2019. The case of the petitioner is that when he went to join at the respondent no.4-school on 26.09.2019, he was not allowed to report at respondent no.4-school. On 27.09.2019 therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the District Education Officer. A copy of the representation is annexed to the petition at page 31, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he had reported to the respondent no.4-school but was not permitted to resume his duty. It appears that the District Education Officer passed a fresh order on 04.10.2019 that the petitioner be absorbed in the respondent no.5-school. The petitioner went to report on 01.10.2019 and 09.10.2019, but was refused to resume his duties. The petitioner again made a representation to the District Education Officer on 10.10.2019 (page 45). On 14.10.2019, the petitioner requested that the respondent no.3 may continue to pay the salary. By an order dated 01.01.2020, on the directions of the District Education Officer, the respondent No.3-school has sought to recover the salary for a period of three months from 25.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 from the petitioner.

3. The District Education Officer on 13.01.2010, has addressed a letter to the petitioner that the petitioner should explain as to why he did not report at the respondent no.5-school and it appears that the petitioner's conduct is to avoid resuming duties at the school where he was posted. To this, the petitioner has responded by letters dated 27.01.2020 and 05.03.2020. Mr.Jha would also submit that the notice dated 13.01.2020 is issued to him only because the petitioner made representation on 11.01.2020.

4. Ms.Vyas learned AGP states that the decision of these communications is pending consideration before the respondent no.1-District Education Officer.

5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the present petition, the respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 schools are already parties and they have chosen not to appear.

6. The District Education Officer while arriving at a decision pursuant to a communication dated 13.01.2020 shall also call for an explanation on the unfolding of events from the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 schools and then take an appropriate decision as to whether is it really the fault of the petitioner when it is a specific case that the respondent nos.4 and 5 did not permit the petitioner to resume his duties. The respondent no.1 shall take a decision on or before 21.08.2020 and place the same on record together with an affidavit. Before taking such decision, the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 schools shall also be heard and the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing.

7. Stand over to 26.08.2020. Registry to communicate the order through E-mail."

3. Subsequently, a detailed order was also passed on 10.09.2020 reiterating the order of