1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2011 (Dr. Kirankumar Rangnath Chakkarwar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. OCTOBER 12, 2011. Heard Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, Mrs. Khade, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Ghurde, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. The question is whether the petitioner was given additional workload of Demonstrator while functioning as Clinical Registrar or then he was appointed as Demonstrator and given workload of Clinical Registrar. The order produced before us dated 20.07.1982 issued by the Principal mentions that the petitioner was given additional teaching work and he is addressed as Registrar. The next document which is in dispute and has been referred to by us in our order dated 29.09.2011 shows designation of the petitioner as Registrar and it mentions that he is appointed as Demonstrator in Agadtantra Department. In addition to his teaching work, he has also been given duty of Clinical Registrar. 2 Then there are some experience certificates which show that the petitioner has worked as Demonstrator. The management has come up with a stand that the appointment order at Annexure 4 dated 20.07.1982 having Outward No. Q is a fabricated document. The management has today stated that there was no advertisement either before the appointment of the petitioner as Clinical Registrar or then as Demonstrator. The reply filed by the management does not state whether there was any resolution passed by the management, appointing the petitioner on either of the post. In this situation, as disputed questions of facts arise, we permit the petitioner to file Civil Suit before the Competent Court in accordance with law. If such Civil Suit is filed within three months from today, Civil Court shall attempt to decide it at the earliest possible, preferably within a period of one year. The original of document retained on record vide order dated 29.09.2011 and marked as “X” for identification i.e. Experience Certificate dated 20.01.1984 appearing signature of Vd. V.S. Amravati, is returned back to Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel. Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel states that along with the rejoinder, some original documents are placed on record. The registry to return those documents after the petitioner places photostat copies thereof along with the rejoinder. 3 Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.