1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1778/2006 (Ku.Nirmala D/o Ganpatrao Sant vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 CORAM: D.D. SINH A & SMT. V.A . NAIK , JJ. DATED: 19th March, 2008. *** Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr. A.D.Sonak, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Badiye, for Respondents 3 and 4. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2.1.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur whereby the proposal which was submitted by the Management for grant of approval in respect of petitioner in the year 2003-04 came to be rejected on the following grounds :- 1) There is no prior permission for filling in the post. 2) Roster is not certified by the Backward Class Cell. 3) There is no mention of the name of the newspaper, which is dated 7.7.1998. It has been 2 mentioned in the advertisement that the teachers are required on clock hour basis for teaching subjects English, Economics, Social Science, History, Political Science. 4) There is a resolution of the School Committee meeting held on 4.7.1998 for publishing advertisement. But there is no resolution of making appointment of the School Committee. 5) It has been noticed that the order of appointment is dated 27.7.1998 and the appointment is made with effect from 11.07.1998 on the probation in the pay scale of Rs. 2000 -3500. But the order of appointment does not bear the signature of the Secretary School Committee. The order of appointment is signed by the Secretary of the Society. 6) As Shri Chimurkar belong to Other Backward Class category and Ku. Sant belongs to Scheduled Tribes (Caste – Halba) category, but there is no caste Validity certificate. 3. Notice before admission was issued in the present Writ Petition and the Respondent No.2 /Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur was asked to file affidavit-in -reply. The Deputy Director of Education has filed affidavit in reply dated 4th July 2006 as well as 21.11.2007 wherein the reasons for not granting approval shown in the impugned order, are reiterated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a categoric statement and specifically submitted that all the reasons which are given in the impugned order as well as in the affidavits filed by the Deputy Director, do not exist and are not supported by the documentary 3 evidence on record. Similarly under relevant Rules, those cannot be the reasons to deny approval to the petitioner. 5. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is apparent that there is dispute in respect of basic facts placed before us by the Deputy Director by filing affidavits as well as the averments made in this regard by the learned counsel for petitioner in the petition. In such a situation, it will be difficult for us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to consider the grievance which pertains to disputed questions of fact. Therefore, we direct the Deputy Director of Education to look into this aspect and consider the issues involved within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order and take appropriate decision according to law and procedure applicable in this regard after verifying the factual evidence - documentary or otherwise available on record. With this observation, Petition is disposed of. Till the Deputy Director takes a decision, the services of the petitioner need not be disturbed. 6. With these directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare