-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.4204 OF 1993 NO.4204 OF 1993 NO.4204 OF 1993 Pratibha D. Andhare ...Petitioner v/s Trimbak N. Patil and ors. ...Respondents Mr S.G. Kudle for Petitioner. Mr S.D. Thokade for Respondent No.1. Mr K.Y. Mandlik for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 6. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND V.M. KANADE JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. It appears that the petitioner was in service of the respondent No.2. The services came to an end and the next year, an advertisement was issued, but the petitioner was not called for interview. The petitioner, it appears, made a complaint before the Education Officer and the petition was also filed in this Court, probably for a direction to the management to call the petitioner for interview. The Court passed its order dated 18th January 1993 which reads as under :- "CORAM : KURDUKAR AND SHAH JJ. . Heard Advocate Shri Kudle. Matter is pending enquiry before Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (see Exh.’H’). No interference is called for at this stage. All contentions are kept open. . Liberty to file fresh petition if occasion arises. . Rejected. -3- 18-1-1993" . It is clear from the above that there is no order made by this Court directing the Education Officer to file report in the Court. All that is said is that the enquiry is pending before the Education Officer. It appears that the Education Officer under some misconception, submitted report to this Court. Taking advantage of this fact the present petition has been filed for direction to the management to appoint the petitioner by setting aside the order passed by the Education Officer granting approval to the appointment of person who was appointed in that post. In our opinion, the present petition itself is extremely misconceived. Despite the petitioner applying pursuant to the advertisement, the management did not call the petitioner for interview, the remedy of the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court for a direction to the management to call the petitioner for interview. The Education Officer does not possess any powers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act 1977 to direct the management to call any candidate for interview or to exclude any person who has applied for interview. As the Education Officer did not have any powers, he cannot make any order pursuant to any report submitted to the Court. In our opinion, no direction can be issued as sought by the petitioner in -4- this petition because the said Act does not confer powers on the Education Officer or any authority to issue directions which are sought in this petition. Petition is misconceived and therefore rejected. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( V.M. KANADE J.)