1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2102/2011. Vijaykumar Nanaji Meshram -VERSUS- The Deputy Director of Education and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 06.06.2011. Heard Shri D.V. Mahajan, the learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Jichkar, the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Education Officer granted approval to the appointments and that approval was questioned before the Deputy Director of Education by the present petitioner, contending that pendency of appeals before the School Tribunal by the terminated employees was then not looked into by the Education Officer. This Court on 27.04.2010 disposed of the Writ Petition No.1986/2010 with directions to the Deputy Director of Education to dispose of this pending representation. 2 That representation was disposed of, and partly the grievance of the present petitioner was redressed. Two employees against whom the decision went, approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4086/2010 and this Court on 29.10.2010 directed the Deputy Director of Education to take fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners before him and all concerned. That decision has been taken on 01.02.2011. The permission-cum-no objection certificate and approval granted to 9 posts was maintained and for remaining two posts which formed subject matter of Writ Petition No. 4086/2010, the Education Officer has been directed to take a fresh decision. According to Shri Mahajan, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, this is nothing but a review, and hence without jurisdiction. In the alternative it is contended that the permission to fill in 9 vacancies maintained by the Deputy Director of Education is unwarranted. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, is seeking time to obtain instructions on facts. However, he states that the order 3 of the Deputy Director of Education in so far as the 9 vacancies are concerned, is not disturbed and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 29.10.2010. After hearing all the respective counsel, we find that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing in terms of the order dated 29.10.2010, and at that time only objection was in relation to two posts occupied by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4086/2010. In other words, the permission-cum-no objection certificate and the approval granted to remaining 9 posts was not disturbed and this was questioned in Writ Petition No. 4086/2010 by aggrieved employees and the present petitioner did not challenge the order in so far as the other 9 posts are concerned. In view of this, the application of mind by the Deputy Director of Education dated 01.02.2011 is neither erroneous nor perverse. Writ Petition is thus, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE 4 Rgd