JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 20.02.2006, 27.08.2009 and has also further prayed to direct respondent No.2 to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment as Vidhya Sahayak w.e.f. 05.09.2005 with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the petition are that : 3. The petitioner was working as Rasoda Nokar (Kitchen Servant) in respondent No.5 Ashram Shala run by respondent No. 4 Trust. Respondent No.4 issued an advertisement on 27.05.2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the appointment to the post of Rasoda Nokar. The petitioner, after undergoing regular recruitment process was appointed as such vide order dated 01.07.2004. The same was also approved by respondent No.2 by the order dated 22.7.2004. 4. Thereafter, by application dated 25.07.2004, the petitioner requested the management to permit him to proceed on leave for his higher studies for Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.). He has stated in his application that he had to report by 25.08.2004. By the resolution dated 11.08.2004, the School Management granted the permission to the petitioner to proceed for his higher studies on the condition that for the leave period he will not claim any salary from 25.08.2004 till one year. By letter dated 18.08.2004 respondent No. 3 Ashram Shala Adhikari/Officer, Khedbrahma, approved the resolution passed by the Management. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained the degree of B.P.Ed. from Nagpur University. 5. By order dated 23.08.2005, respondent No.3 issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) for filling up the post of Vidhya Sahayak in the Ashram Shala. An advertisement dated 26.08.2005 was issued for filling up the post of Vidhya Sahayak by the School Management. The said advertisement indicated that open interview for filling up the said post is to be held on 02.09.2005. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, a Selection Committee was appointed for filling up the said post and seven candidates remained present before the Selection Committee. The petitioner, after undergoing the selection process, was appointed as Vidhya sahayak as he secured the highest mark in the selection process. 6. By the appointment letter dated 02.09.2005, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Vidhya Sahayak w.e.f. 05.09.2005. The appointment order of the petitioner was sent for approval to respondent No.2. The petitioner, after undergoing the selection process, was appointed as Vidhya sahayak as he secured the highest mark in the selection process. 6. By the appointment letter dated 02.09.2005, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Vidhya Sahayak w.e.f. 05.09.2005. The appointment order of the petitioner was sent for approval to respondent No.2. By the impugned letter dated 20.02.2006 respondent No.2 informed respondent No.3 that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved since he had obtained B.P.Ed. degree from Nagpur University during his service, and the same cannot be considered as valid. 7. By the letter dated 25.05.2006 the management apprised respondent No.3 that the petitioner was sent for higher studies by treating his leave period as Leave Without Pay (LWP) and after obtaining the degree and undergoing recruitment process, he was appointed to the post of Vidhya Sahayak. 8. By letter dated 12.07.2006, written by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, necessary information pertaining to the case of the petitioner was called for. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 12.07.2006, respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 14.11.2006 informed him that the petitioner was sent for higher studies after he was granted due approval vide letter dated 18.08.2004. Necessary documents in support of the case of the petitioner were also sent to respondent No.2 by respondent No.3. 9. Thereafter, by the impugned letter dated 27.08.2009 respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved since he had proceeded for higher studies without obtaining necessary sanction from respondent No.3, and secondly he had acquired B.P.Ed. degree during his service. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vociferously submitted that both the aforesaid impugned letters i.e. dated 20.02.2006 and 27.08.2009 suffer from total non-application of mind on behalf of the respondent authorities. He has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Rasoda Nokar only because he possessed Master of Arts (M.A.). He has submitted that the petitioner was sent for higher studies after following due procedure of law and after obtaining approval of the concerned authority i.e. respondent No.3. It is not the case of the authorities that without informing anyone he had proceeded to Nagpur for higher studies. He has submitted that the petitioner was sent for higher studies after following due procedure of law and after obtaining approval of the concerned authority i.e. respondent No.3. It is not the case of the authorities that without informing anyone he had proceeded to Nagpur for higher studies. He has also stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Vidhya Sahayak after undergoing due selection procedure, and since he had obtained higher merits than the other candidates he was offered the appointment. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.02.2010 wherein a statement on behalf of the petitioner was made that the petitioner was discharging his duties as Vidhya Sahayak as well as Rasoda Nokar. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that the impugned letters deserve to be quashed and set aside. 11. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, has submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in not approving the appointment of the petitioner is justified as the petitioner pursued his B.P.Ed. course during his service. He has further submitted that the approval was granted to the petitioner on 18.08.2004, and he appeared in the examination of B.P.Ed. in the month of April 2005. He obtained the degree after rendering 7-1/2 months and, therefore, the degree possessed by the petitioner is not valid as he did not undergo the course for more than six months. 12. Learned AGP has further asserted that the petition suffers from delay and latches as the initial letter rejecting the approval of the petitioner was passed on 20.02.2006, and further representation made by the petitioner will not bring the present petition within the purview of limitation since the letter dated 27.08.2009 is also written by the same authority. He has further contended that the letter dated 23.11.2009 written by the School Management informing the petitioner that he cannot be continued to the post of Vidhya Sahayak has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he has urged that the present petition may not be entertained. No further contention is raised by either side. 13. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he has urged that the present petition may not be entertained. No further contention is raised by either side. 13. Though the matter is of 2010, no affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. The oral contentions raised by the learned AGP from his written submissions are deliberated by this Court. 14. I shall now endeavor to deal with the contentions raised by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 15. The facts established from the record is that the petitioner was appointed as Rasoda Nokar after following due procedure of law. Thereafter, he requested for one year's study leave without pay w.e.f. 25.08.2004 by the application dated 25.07.2004. The School Management granted such permission vide its resolution dated 28.07.2004 and also recommended respondent No. 3-Ashram Shala Officer to approve the same. Respondent No.3 approved the resolution of the Management vide letter dated 18.08.2004. Pursuant to the aforesaid procedure, the petitioner proceeded for his higher studies of B.P.Ed. Course. 16. The respondent School Management, thereafter, issued an advertisement dated 26.08.2005 for filing up the post of Vidhya Sahayak. A regular recruitment process was undertaken by the School Management. The petitioner was duly selected since he was found to be most meritorious amongst the candidates. As it is borne out from the inter se communications exchanged between the School Management, the Ashram Shala Officer and the respondent authorities, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Vidhya Sahayak was undertaken by the School Management. 17. By the impugned letter dated 27.08.2009 the approval of the petitioner to the post of Vidhya Sahayak was refused. Undoubtedly, the impugned letter suggests two reasons for refusing the approval – (1) that the petitioner has obtained his degree of B.P.Ed. during his service tenure; and (2) no approval was taken from the authorities before securing his B.P.Ed. degree from Nagpur University. Both the aforesaid impugned communications do not refer to any provisions of law, under which a degree obtained by an employee during the service can be acknowledged as invalid. Learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to point out any provisions of law in support of the ground stated in the impugned communication. Thus, the impugned communications being bereft of any provisions of law, which could support the reason stated therein, are liable to be quashed and set aside. 18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to point out any provisions of law in support of the ground stated in the impugned communication. Thus, the impugned communications being bereft of any provisions of law, which could support the reason stated therein, are liable to be quashed and set aside. 18. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner after misrepresentation or fraud proceeded on leave, and keeping the authorities in dark had obtained the B.P.Ed. degree. The communication dated 27.08.2009 also suffers from non-application of mind as it specifically states that the petitioner did not obtain any permission from respondent No. 3-Ashram Shala Officer, which is contrary to the record. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 had granted the approval vide communication dated 18.08.2004. Respondent No.3 i.e. Ashram Shala Officer by letter dated 14.11.2006 has informed respondent No.2 that an appropriate approval was granted to the petitioner vide his letter dated 18.08.2004. Respondent No.2 has not even cared to refer to the communication written by respondent No.3 on 14.11.2006. It is also not the case of respondents No. 1 and 2 that respondent No.3 was incompetent to grant such approval. In the wake of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner had illegally proceeded to pursue his B.P. Ed. course. 19. Apropos the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the degree obtained by the petitioner in short duration can be said to be invalid, it deserves to be noted that the impugned communications are absolutely silent on the said aspect. The impugned communications do not doubt the degree on the ground that the same is invalid as it is obtained in eight months. Such contention is totally alien to the reasons stated in the impugned communication. The impugned communication is solely based on the reason that the petitioner attended the B.P.Ed. course while in service. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent authorities investigated about the validity of the degree from Nagpur University. The contention raised by the learned AGP is nothing but an afterthought, not supported by any cogent documentary proof, hence, the same does not merit acceptance. 20. The next contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petition is filed belatedly and the same suffers from delay and latches also deserves to be rejected. The contention raised by the learned AGP is nothing but an afterthought, not supported by any cogent documentary proof, hence, the same does not merit acceptance. 20. The next contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petition is filed belatedly and the same suffers from delay and latches also deserves to be rejected. The said contention is misconceived since the tenor of the proceedings will show that the entire communications were exchanged between the management and the respondent authorities. By letter dated 12.07.2006 respondent No.2 had called for necessary details from respondent No.3. Pursuant to which the correspondences took place between respondent No.3 and the Management to which the petitioner was never privy. By the impugned letter dated 27.08.2009 respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Vidhya Sahayak cannot be approved. Thus, the petition does not suffer from any delay and latches as it is immediately filed in the year 2010. 21. The contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that since the petitioner has not challenged the impugned letter dated 23.11.2009 whereby the School Management has reverted him to the post of Vidhya Sahayak, the present petition cannot be entertained, is also misjudged. The said contention is also liable to be rejected as the School Management after honestly pursuing with the respondent authorities were constrained to revert the petitioner vide letter dated 23.11.2009 in the wake of the impugned communications. 22. Further facts subsequent to the impugned communication dated 27.08.2009 deserve to be referred. By the certificate dated 27.01.2010 the management has continued the petitioner as Vidhya Sahayak. It is stated that the petitioner's service as Vidhya Sahayak was very satisfactory. In the peculiar facts and circumstance, since the appointment of the petitioner as Vidhya Sahayak was not approved, he was also continued as Rasoi Nokar. Till today, though, he is rendering his duty in dual capacity as Rasoi Nokar in the morning, and thereafter as Vidhya Sahayak, he is being paid the salary of Rasoi Nokar. 23. In view of the foregoing analysis of the facts and observations, I am of the opinion that the impugned communications/orders of respondent No.2 dated 20.02.2006 and 27.08.2009 are required to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. 23. In view of the foregoing analysis of the facts and observations, I am of the opinion that the impugned communications/orders of respondent No.2 dated 20.02.2006 and 27.08.2009 are required to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is further directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.09.2005 as Vidhya Sahayak. Necessary consequential benefits shall also be paid to the petitioner. His pay shall be fixed on the basis of the order dated 05.09.2005. Necessary increments shall also be granted to the petitioner. The order, as indicated hereinabove, shall be passed within a period of 02 (two) months from today. 24. The petition is allowed accordingly. RULE is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. Petition allowed.