JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE A.P., J.:—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard Shri A.P. Tathod, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3 and Shri D.M. Surjuse, learned Counsel for respondents 4 5. 2. The petitioners educational qualifications are M.A. English-2nd Division. At graduation level i.e. B.A. the petitioner had opted Marathi and English subjects besides other subjects. The petitioner is also possessing B.P.Ed. Degree (Bifocal) with Marathi as a method subject. The petitioner came to be appointed as and from 17-11-1997 as a Lecturer in Junior College administered and managed by the respondent No. 5 by name Mulji Jetha Nagar Parishad Junior College, Karanja. The petitioner continued to be appointed on ad hoc basis and various orders came to be issued from time to time continuing him in service till 15-3-2002, i.e. for a period of about five years. 3. When the petitioner was working with the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, an advertisement was issued for the post of Lecturer. As the petitioner was continued on ad hoc basis or a period of about 5 years, pursuant to the policy of the Government and in accordance with the orders passed by this Court, the petitioners name was forwarded by the Municipal Council to the District Selection Committee headed by the Collector for being considered for appointment. A post of Lecturer being available with the Municipal Council, the District Selection Committee selected the petitioner for being appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. As the District Selection Committee, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, selected the petitioner and recommended him for being appointed in the post of Shikshan Sevak, the Municipal Council chose to appoint the petitioner by issuing the order of appointment dated 15-3-2002 and since then the petitioner has been working as Shikshan Sevak in the employment of the 4th respondent and the said appointment is substantive. After the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the employment of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent forwarded the proposal to the Deputy Director of Education, for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Strangely enough, the Deputy Director of Education has refused to grant approval and rejected the proposal forwarded by the respondent No. 4. 4. After the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the employment of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent forwarded the proposal to the Deputy Director of Education, for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Strangely enough, the Deputy Director of Education has refused to grant approval and rejected the proposal forwarded by the respondent No. 4. 4. Before we deal with the merits of the matter, it is necessary to bear in mind the peculiar position of the available workload for the post in which the petitioner came to be appointed. The workload that was available is as under:-- Twelve periods for English, Twelve periods for Marathi and four periods for physical education, total being twenty eight periods. It is obvious that requisite workload is available. It is also evident that the Municipal Council was in need of a man who could teach English and Marathi subjects besides physical Education periods as well. The present petitioner satisfies and is eligible to teach the said three subjects inasmuch as the petitioner is M.A. 2nd Division in English, hence eligible, so far as english is concerned. At graduation level and B.P.Ed. the petitioner had Marathi as a subject and as such he is eligible to teach Marathi, whereas he holds the decree of Bachelor of Physical Education and as such he is eligible to teach physical education. Not only this, the petitioner belongs to Kunbi caste which is included in Other Backward Class and there is a backlog of O.B.C. 5. In this background, now we turn to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The first ground is that necessary workload is not available in the subject in which the petitioner is having postgraduate qualification. The said objection is wholly unsustainable for the reason that the Deputy Director knew well in advance that there are 12 periods in English available in college and the petitioner is eligible to teach the english subject. The prescribed workload is 20 periods and if 12 periods in english are available, then said objection about non-availability of adequate workload is absolutely unjustified. 6. The next objection is that the candidate does not possess B.Ed. qualification. Suffice to say that B.P.Ed. (Bifocal) has been granted equivalence with B.Ed. The prescribed workload is 20 periods and if 12 periods in english are available, then said objection about non-availability of adequate workload is absolutely unjustified. 6. The next objection is that the candidate does not possess B.Ed. qualification. Suffice to say that B.P.Ed. (Bifocal) has been granted equivalence with B.Ed. The next objection is that there is a backlog of 4 in number in regard to reserved category (Backward Class) wherein one post is shown to be backlog in regard to OBC category. The petitioner being a OBC candidate, his appointment would be in furtherance of removal of backlog. Minimum workload required for sanction of a post is 20 periods and there is workload available of 28 periods. Perusal of the initial order passed by the Deputy Director of Education which permits and authorises the Municipal Council to make an appointment categorically reveals that the Deputy Director was aware about the workload available in each of the subjects and thereafter has permitted the Municipal Council to make an appointment. Hence, the objection raised, for refusing approval on the ground that the workload is insufficient, is wholly unsustainable. Clause 5 of the said communication reveals that if one person has to teach two subjects i.e. English and Marathi, then at the post-graduate level he should have English as a subject and Marathi ought to be a subject at the degree level. This requirement is squarely satisfied by the petitioners appointment. We do not see any justification for the Deputy Director to have passed the impugned order refusing grant of approval to the petitioners appointment. 7. After passing of the impugned order by the Deputy Director of Education refusing approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 has proceeded to issue an order of termination, terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 18-2-2003. Perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Council reveals that the order of termination is only a consequential order passed, because the Deputy Director has refused to grant approval. Shri D.M. Surjuse, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 5, has categorically stated that the Municipal Council is wanting to continue the petitioner in employment as his services are satisfactory and he is continued since the year 1997 till the termination because of his good work. Shri D.M. Surjuse, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 5, has categorically stated that the Municipal Council is wanting to continue the petitioner in employment as his services are satisfactory and he is continued since the year 1997 till the termination because of his good work. He has further shown readiness and willingness of the Municipal Council to withdraw the order of termination and to continue the petitioner in service, in the event if the approval is granted. If this be the position, the moment the impugned order refusing to grant approval is quashed and set aside, the Municipal Council would proceed to withdraw the order of termination and reinstate the petitioner in service. 8. For the reasons set out hereinabove and in the peculiar facts of the present case, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is wholly unsustainable in law, besides being unfair and unjust. 9. In the result, we quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 12-9-2002. We further direct the Deputy Director of Education respondent No. 3 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in respondent No. 5 college and Shikshan Sevak. The respondent No. 4 having already undertaken to reinstate the petitioner by withdrawing the order of termination, no orders are necessary to be passed against the respondent No. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, the respondent No. 4 shall proceed to reinstate the petitioner. With these directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to the costs. Petition allowed. -----