1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5303/2010 [Narvin Kawaduji Hirekhan .vrs. Education Officer and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 16, 2011. Heard Advocate Shri N.M. Jibhkate with Advocate Shri P.H. Khobragade for the petitioner, AGP Shri A.S. Fulzele for respondent no.1, Advocate Shri A.S. Chandurkar for respondent no.2 and Advocate Smt. S.W. Deshpande for respondent no.3. Advocate Shri Jibhkate for the petitioner states that the reasons given in impugned order that there is backlog of S.T. Category is incorrect. He invites attention to advertisement dated 15.7.2009 to show that advertisement specifically revealed that the post was reserved for SC Category and it was third advertisement. He further contends that there are four sanctioned posts in middle school and only three are occupied, thus one is still vacant. According to 2 him, impugned order passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, therefore, is unsustainable. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 and learned Advocate Shri Chandurkar for respondent no. 2 are supporting the impugned order. They invite our attention to order dated 18.1.2010 to show that entry into service of the present petitioner was found legal and, therefore, approval to him was rejected. It is contended that said order has not been challenged thereafter. Learned AGP further points out that in spite of this position, in-charge Education Officer erroneously granted approval to the petitioner and hence Deputy Director ordered reconsideration and after reconsideration, order dated 6.8.2010 has been passed. We find that reasons mentioned in order dated 18.1.2010 are not looked into and do not figure in impugned order dated 6.8.2010. After 18.1.2010, respondent no.2 has permitted the petitioner to join and work and as is apparent from order dated 20.1.2010. The only reason given by the Education Officer is that advertisement was incorrect and there was no backlog in SC category. We find that interest of justice would be met by directing respondent no.1 to hear the 3 petitioner as also respondent no.2 and pass appropriate order in this respect at the earliest. We direct the parties to report to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur on 18th July, 2011 and to file their respective replies on same day. The Education Officer shall thereafter peruse the records and pass appropriate order in the matter in accordance with the law and in any case by 31st August, 2011. Till then, status quo as on today to continue. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande