1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1333 OF 2008 Narendra Shrirang Katoke ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri V.P.Kadam, advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 Shri V.S.Panpatte, advocate for respondent no.3. Respondent no.5 served, but absent. ..... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 2nd December, 2009. PER COURT : 1 We heard Shri V.P.Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. Shri K.J.Ghute Patil for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri V.S.Panpatte, learned counsel for 2 respondent no.3. Respondent no.5 served, but absent. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that prayer clause (D) is the main or principal prayer made in this petition, which reads as follows :- “ (D) To quash and set aside the Letter dated 24 th January, 2007 issued by Respondent no.2 i.e. Director of Maharashtra State Educational Research Training (Postal D.Ed. Course) Division Pune and allow the petitioner for the postal D.Ed. Course. “ 3 The communication, which is sought to be quashed on behalf of the petitioner, is annexed with this writ petition. It is enclosed at Exh. ‘H’ (page 35). This communication is signed by the Director of Education i.e. respondent no.2. This communication is addressed to the present petitioner. From this communication, it does reflect that earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 6321 of 2005 in this court and in view of the direction issued by this court, the petitioner was heard on 3 3.1.2007. The petitioner did remain present before the authority concerned and produced some documents. Those documents were considered by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had also considered inquiry report of the Divisional Deputy Director of Education and the findings of the hearing dated 3.1.2007 as mentioned in this communication dated 24.1.2007 and on this finding and for these reasons recorded in this communication dated 24.1.2007, it has been informed to the petitioner that case of the petitioner does not fit in condition nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Government Resolution dated 2.6.2000 and corrigendum thereof dated 11.7.2000. 4 The above said grounds for holding that the petitioner is not eligible for postal D.Ed. course are material. Ground no.1 records that the petitioner’s appointment from December 1998 to February 2000 was not on sanctioned post. The second ground mentioned is that during above period the appointment of the 4 petitioner is additional and/or surplus. Ground no.3 mentions that service of the petitioner is not continuous. Ground no.4 records that the appointment of the petitioner is not in view of the roster. Ground no.5 records that there is discrepancy, revealed in an inspection report pertaining to the names of the teachers on roll for the academic years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Doubt has been raised towards inspection reports. Letter of the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kinwat dated 17.8.2005 is also not considered to be genuine by respondent no. 2. 5 In support of these grounds in communication dated 24.1.2007, affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.2. It is sworn in by one Arun Fakira Dhamne working as Lecturer in Maharashtra State Council of Educational Research & Training, Pune at the relevant time. 6 Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 points out relevant paragraph i.e. para 15 from the affidavit. 5 Learned A.G.P. also points out inquiry report dated 18.12.2006 Exh. R-2 (page 53). 7 With the assistance of learned respective counsel for the parties, we have considered entire inspection report signed by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur. 8 Shri V.P.Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through page 21 of the compilation. It is a statement,for the year 1996-97 showing the names of the teachers, their pay scale, educational qualification, date of birth and date of appointment. This seems to be issued by the Head Master of Samata Vidyalaya (Primary), Siddarthnagar, Kinwat, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. This statement is also counter signed by the Senior Extension Officer (Education), Primary Section, Kinwat (I). Shri Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner empathetically submits that this statement is counter signed by the Senior Extension Officer and shows the date of 6 appointment of the present petitioner as 16.6.1991. He further points out that one Mr. Wathore S.N., primary teacher, junior to the petitioner, was also working in the same school. His date of appointment, Shri Kadam, learned counsel submits, is 11.10.1991. Shri Kadam, learned counsel, however, submits that Wathore has been permitted postal D.Ed. He also submits that the report page 53 does show that the petitioner’s appointment is in view of the roster, since the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class. 9 We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. The appointment letter and/or copy thereof is not produced on record. Respondent no. 5 conspicuously is served, however, none appears for respondent no.5. There is no reply filed on behalf of respondent no.5. On behalf of the Education Officer, Nanded, there is no reply filed. However, Shri Panpatte, learned counsel points out that report 7 page 53 has been written through the Education Officer. He supports the affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2. The communication of respondent no.2 is well supported by the report, which is placed on record along with the affidavit. 10 In our view no case is established for invoking extra- ordinary jurisdiction for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 24.1.2007. The Writ Petition sans merit and, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) dbm/wp1333.08