1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APLICATION (REVIEW) NO.726 OF 2010. IN WRIT PETITION NO.1330 OF 2005 (D). Vinayak Digambarrao Harne,Murtijapur, Distrait Akola. .Vrs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Shri. H. A. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant.) Shri J. B. Gandhi Advocate for non applicant No. 2.) CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 15th July, 2011. Heard respective counsel. The Tribunal while considering preliminary issue regarding validity of appointment of present review applicant found that a Senior Assistant Teacher in the shape of Shri Dhakular was available for promotion and therefore the Provision of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 were violated. That finding was questioned before this Court alleging that, at that time Shri Dhakular did not possess requisite experience. This Court has looked into the matter and after noticing the Provision of Rule 2 as mentioned, maintained the order of School Tribunal. In review effort is to show that the case of Shri Dhakulkar was pressed into the service before School Tribunal without any notice, and review applicant did not get any opportunity to meet those allegations. It is pointed out that as he did not possess requisite experience, he was not in a zone of consideration and therefore appellant before School Tribunal i.e. present review applicant was appointed. It is further stated that, subsequently, Shri Dhakular has himself become Head Master in due course and in the seniority list certified by him, his date of entry in the service is shown as 27.06.1988. It is, therefore, argued that, even if that date is looked into, it is apparent that, at the time of issuance of advertisement in response to which review applicant has been selected, he did not possess necessary experience. Shri. Gandhi, learned Counsel, on the other hand points out that, the review applicant himself has 3 in his capacity as a Secretary certified on 24.04.1998, that, Shri. Dhakulkar was in employment from July1987. According to him, this date if looked in to clearly shows that on relevant date the said employee namely Shri Dhakular was eligible for consideration. It is apparent that, a disputed question is sought to be raised about the date of entry into service for the first time before this Court in review application. The document on which Advocate Shri Gandhi has placed reliance reveals that it was issued on 24.12.1988 by present review applicant only. At this stage, Shri Naik, learned Counsel points out that, in review, the counter has been filed and the signature or issuance of such certificate, by the review applicant has been denied. Shri. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has in the alternative invited attention to attendance records to show that Shri. Dhakulkar was working since July 1987. In view of the position, it is apparent that, on the date of advertisement an eligible employee was 4 available. The School Tribunal has accordingly looked into the fact and its findings has been maintained by this Court. Such finding cannot be displaced and has not been displaced by present applicant. He would have produced necessary material in Writ Petition itself. In this situation, on the basis of a disputed question, review is being sought. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the order of School Tribunal. Application is therefore rejected. JUDGE Deshmukh.