(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7402 OF 2008 Parvinsultana Ajijkhan Pathan @ Pooja w/o. Prashant Gorthekar, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. Shantabai Chandrakant Gorthekar, Sr. Assistant Panchayat Samiti, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. 3. Rajeshwari Sevabhavi Education Society at Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur, Through its Founder Director. 4. Rajureshwar Primary Vidhyalaya, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur, Through its Head Master. 5. The Secretary, Rajeshwari Sevabhavi Education Society Ltd., Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, Dist. Latur. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. S.R. Kolhare, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. B.V. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is contending that the approval order issued by the Education Officer, dated 30th June 2008, goes to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. However, the petitioner is claiming approval to the post of Assistant Teacher in regular pay scale. 2. After issuance of notice in the present petition, affidavit in reply has been filed by the school management. (3) According to the school management, the petitioner was never appointed in the employment of the school, be it as an Assistant Teacher or a Shikshan Sevak. The appointment order, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming right, is stated to be a forged document signed by some one claiming to be the Director of the Sanstha. 3. Under the rules, it is not in dispute, that the appointment has to be made under the signature of the Head Master who acts as the Secretary of the School Committee. The School Committee is the appointing authority. The petitioner has not placed on record the advertisement pursuant to which he claims to have applied for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher. 4. After the order of approval was issued, the school management sought review of the approval order, by making representation to the Education Officer and by contending that the appointment order is a forged document and the approval was sought on the basis of a proposal submitted under the signature of one Shri B.P. Swami, who was never Head Master of the school. The management urged the Education Officer to revoke the approval order. The Education Officer had called for explanation of Shri B.P. Swami, who allegedly signed and forwarded the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of (4) the petitioner. The explanation of the said person is placed on record at Annexure R-3, dated 25th December 2008. Perusal of the explanation clearly reveals that the said person has admitted that one of the Directors pressurized him to submit the proposal of the present petitioner to the Education Officer for seeking approval to his appointment. It is also stated in the explanation, that the said person was not the Head Master. 5. We are informed at the Bar, that the matter is pending consideration of the Education Officer. The Education Officer is enquiring into the legality or otherwise of the appointment of the present petitioner. Various disputed questions of fact arise for consideration in this Writ Petition, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain the present petition, at this stage, and proceed to dismiss the same. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limine. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach this court, in the event, he is aggrieved by the decision of the Education Officer. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/wp7402