1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2009 (Rajesh Ganesh Mante and another .v. Gopi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Bahuuddeshiya Mandal and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Gaikee, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Mangesh Bute, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 05TH AUGUST, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to respondent No.3-Education Officer to grant approval to their appointments on the posts of Assistant Teacher. They have also challenged the orders issued by respondent No.3 informing respondent No.2 the deficiencies in the proposal and asking him to cure all the deficiencies and forward the same afresh. There is no dispute that the appointment letters were issued by respondent No.2-Headmaster. Respondent No.1- management contend that the Headmaster was not authorized and/or empowered to appoint or issue appointment orders to the petitioners. The management has filed reply affidavit and has stated that the due procedure as contemplated under Section 5 of MEPS Act was not followed by respondent No.2-Headmaster while appointing the petitioners on the posts of Assistant Teacher. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the reply affidavit filed, the management has stated thus :- “... It is submitted here that the appointment of the petitioners are illegal one and not by due procedure followed by the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has not taken prior permission from Education Officer as contemplated under Sec.5 of the Act. No advertisement was published in any of the newspaper for the said posts. No procedure has been followed by the respondent no.2 before giving the appointments to the petitioner. The respondent 2 no.2 directly called the petitioners and given appointment letters to them. No interviews were conducted by the management for the said post. It is submitted that the management has not passed any resolution so far as the appointments of the petitioners are concerned. The respondent no.2 himself working as a whole and sole for the management. The respondent no.2 is the so-called President is on one side and the Secretary and nine members are on the other side. The respondent no.2 did not permit the Secretary as well as the other members in the school premises. The other members published a notice in the news paper that the In-charge Head Master i.e. respondent no.2 misguiding the people in support of one Shri Dhananjay Ghuge who is not the member of the management. The copy of the said notice is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – R1. It is submitted here that the strength of the student in this school on 07.06.2008 is total 43 students for classes V to X th std. The Joint Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, M.S. Pune, issued a show cause notice to the Secretary i.e. respondent no.1 after inspected the school. The copy of the said show cause notice is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – R2.” Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.2-headmaster is also a President of the institution. This claim of respondent No.2 has not been admitted by respondent No.1-institution. He further submitted that from the date of their appointment, the petitioners have been working in the school and have not been paid their salaries till this date and, therefore, they are entitled for the arrears of salary. These all statements/submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are disputed by respondent No.1-management. According to the management the petitioners were not/are not working in their school and hence are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the petition. It appears that there is a dispute between the management and the headmaster. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were and are actually attending the school on the basis of the appointment letters issued by the headmaster. It is pertinent to note that the 3 petitioners have not disputed the fact that the due procedure was not followed for appointing them on the posts of Assistant Teachers. Keeping that in view and considering that the petition raises several disputed questions of fact, it would not be possible to examine and record findings of fact in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and grant any relief, as prayed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not preclude the petitioners from taking appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievance. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.