1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1787 OF 2011. (Abhay Manoharrao Shaligram Vs. Nootan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri A.K. Choube, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Mehroz Pathan, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 08, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Because of refusal of approval, services of petitioner were terminated and that was assailed in appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act before the School Tribunal. Petition has failed in that appeal and that challenge has attained finality. In this petition attempt is to demonstrate that petitioner was not selected against a reserved post and therefore, the rejection of approval is arbitrary. We find substance in the contentions of learned AGP that such petition is not maintainable. However, Shri Choube, has relied upon the communication dated 25.08.2011 issued by Assistant Commissioner (Backward Cell) to employer to contend that the entire roster used by his employer (respondent nos.1 and 2) has been canceled and exercise to prepare 2 fresh roster has been undertaken. According to him therefore, rejection of approval to appointment of petitioner must also fall to ground. Communication dated 25.08.2011 handed over by learned counsel for petitioner is placed on record as Exhibit-X. Learned AGP is disputing this proposition. He however states that he is not aware of communication dated 25.08.2011. If communication dated 25.08.2011 opens a new challenge for present petitioner, without affecting that challenge, we find present petition not maintainable and the same is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN