:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1399 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1399 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1399 OF 2009 Ramesh Mohan Nargunde ..Petitioner versus The President, Chaitanya Education Society, Miraj, Sangli & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. M. Momin for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandesh P. Patil i/b. Mr. Ajay A. Salvi for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated 24.9.2008 in Appeal No. 241 of 1996, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. 3. Without going into the other aspects of the decision of the Tribunal, one thing is clear that :2: the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide a paragraph 22 on the ground that the petitioner could not show that advertisement for the post held by him was widely published in any local newspaper inviting the applications to fill in the post. According to the Tribunal since the procedure prescribed by law for recruitment was not followed in the case of the petitioner, he had no right to hold the post. This appears to be a main reason why the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. 4. The Deputy Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, has filed an affidavit dated 13.2.2009 before this Court, in which the deponent has stated vide a paragraph 2 that the record shows that an advertisement was given by the school in the newspaper, viz. "Daily Pratidwani" on 30.12.1994 whereby the interested candidates were directed to remain present in the school for interview. Apparently, for reasons best known to the Education Officer such an affidavit was not filed before the Tribunal. However, the lapse of the Education Officer ought not to result in any prejudice to the petitioner. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is :3: set aside. The matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal for a fresh decision on all points in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)