1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2642 OF 2010 (SAKHARAM D. KUTE....VS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V.G.Wankhede, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Advocate for Respondents No.4 and 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 13, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the District Vocational Education Training Officer, Buldana holding that the petitioner had never served with respondent No.4 from 14.09.1992 to 27.09.1995 and therefore, there was no question of payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner from the year 1992 to 1995. 3. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had actually worked with respondent No.4 from the year 1992 to 1995 it is the case of respondents No.4 and 5 that the petitioner was not actually serving with respondent No.4 during the relevant period. The necessary documents showing that the petitioner had not actually served with the management during the relevant time were produced by respondent No.4 before respondent No.3 authority. On considering the documents produced by the petitioner as well 2 as respondents No.4 and 5, respondent No.3, by the impugned order, held that there were no documents on record to show that the petitioner had actually worked as an Instructor with the respondent No.4 from the year 1992 to 1995. The order passed by the respondent No.3 on 17th December, 2009 is based on the documents produced by the parties on record and the same appears to be just and proper. No apparent error is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the order dated 17.12.2009. 4. The order passed by the respondent No.3 calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..