V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-5-2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Pune rejecting the request of respondent No. 1 for condoning the condition of five years experience in relation to the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition stated briefly are that the petitioner belonging to backward class was a senior teacher in respondent No. 1-Society's School. When it came to appointment of Head Master whose experience and other attaining circumstances the Management appointed the petitioner as Head Master though he did not possess experience of five years as contemplated in the Rules. This action of the Management was disapproved by the Education Authorities by its order dated 3-7-2001. The petitioner therefore approached this Court against that order in Writ Petition No. 3627 of 2001 which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-8-2001. The order impugned dated 3-7-2001 was set aside by this Court on the ground that appointment with relaxation of the Rules can be made only on obtaining previous approval of the Deputy Director of Education. It was observed by this Court that no such action for seeking prior approval was initiated and therefore the order dated 3-7-2001 could not be sustained. The right of the petitioner to have his case for condonation of delay considered by the Appropriate Authority was denied. Hence the order was set aside. The matter was remitted back and an application was made by the Management thereafter for post facto sanction to the appointment of the petitioner in relaxation of rule requiring five years experience as minimum experience. This application was considered on merits by the Deputy Director of Education who by the impugned order held that no such post facto approval can be granted or relaxation can be ordered and therefore the application for grant of relaxation of post facto was rejected. This rejection is impugned in this petition by the petitioner. Basic ground is that the order dated 30-5-2002 is cryptic and no reasons are given and is therefore in express violation of the order passed by this Court on 24-8-2001. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order will show this ground to be baseless. The Deputy Director has precisely stated the facts and his conclusions and then has held that under Rule 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 it is not possible or permissible to grant post facto relaxation of the condition of experience laying emphasis on the words 'prior approval' occurring therein. To read possibility or permissibility of granting post facto approval to relaxation is to add something to Rule 3 which in effect would be An act of Legislation which cannot be done by the Courts. There is therefore no error in that order. We see no reason to interfere. Hence the petition is dismissed.