1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1665 OF 2009. ( Shaikh Arif Shaikh Hamja -: versus :- Shri Gopaleshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Mahagaon and others.) 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, J. DATED : JULY 12, 2010. Heard Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri A.P. Tathod, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. Petitioner posses B.P. Ed. qualification and School Tribunal after going through the various judgments including the judgment reported at 2005 [3] Mh.L.J. 696 has found that B.P.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as equivalent to B.Ed. qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher. It has therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Effort of Shri Patil, learned counsel for petitioner before this Court is to show that B.P.Ed. Course undergone 2 by the petitioner is B.P.Ed.(Bifocal) and that this Court has granted equivalence to it with B.Ed. Reliance is being placed on the judgment reported at 2004 [1] All MR 496 (Kishore Digambar Wankhede .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) for said purpose. Shri Tathod, learned counsel and learned A.G.P. for respective respondents point out that this was not the contention before the School Tribunal or any of the earlier rounds of litigation. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has undergone B.P.Ed. (Bifocal) Course. The marksheet produced by him does not indicate any such course and the resolution dated 01.06.2000 at Annexure-XIII also does not uses the word “Bifocal”. Shri Patil, learned counsel has when the order was being dictated points out the government circular which according to him clarifies that the course under taken by the petitioner is B.P.Ed. (Bifocal). The said circular dated 01.06.2000 has not been produced before any of the Authorities or before this Court when Writ Petition came to be filed. I am therefore, not inclined to take the government circular into account at this stage. Hence in view of the 3 request made by Shri Patil, learned counsel and though the said request is opposed by Shri Tathod, learned Counsel and learned A.G.P. appearing for respective respondents, Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with above liberty. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.