4. Our attention is invited by Mr.Deshpande
to the affidavit of S.C.Mandlik, filed on behalf
of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended
therein that the proposals do not mention as to
whether the appointments are made on part time
basis or clock hour basis. Therefore, initially
the proposals were rejected. Thereafter,
appointment of petitioners was approved on clock
hour basis. It is contended that the appointment
of petitioners was not against a permanent and
full time post. Approval was granted earlier
ignoring the position of backlog. Although,
approval has been granted in favour of some
candidates in the same institution, that will not
assist the petitioners at all. The Dy.Director,
according to affidavit, cannot interfere with the
working and functioning of the office of
Education Officer (Secondary), sofar as approval
to the appointment of Secondary School Teachers.
Neither there are any suo mottu powers conferred
to initiate action once approval is granted.
Therefore, approvals granted in favour of some
teachers would not advance the case of
petitioners. For all these reasons it is prayed
that petitions be dismissed.
