1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No.3070 OF 2010 (Ku. Indu G. Brahmanwade .vs. State and Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2011. Heard finally by the consent of Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioner, Mrs.A.R.Taiwade, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr.V.K.Paliwal, Adv. for respondent nos. 4 and 5. The sanctioned strength, as pointed out on 22.3.1994, as per the orders of Education Officer, for the year 1993-94, shows that four posts were available for 25 % quota of graduate teachers. Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv., therefore, contends that approval given to the petitioner as a graduate teacher in that quota from 1.7.1997 is unsustainable and the effective date needs to be pre-poned to 5.7.1993. He points out the affidavit- in-reply filed by the Education Officer wherein the Education Officer has stated that the proposal, as sent by the Management, was looked into and impugned approval came to be granted. 2 The learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3/Education Officer relies upon the say and affidavit-in-reply to urge that there was no vacancy for the petitioner in the year 1993-94 and post for her absorption as a graduate teacher became available in 1997-98 from 1.7.1997. Mr.V.K.Paliwal, Adv. for respondent nos. 4 and 5 is adopting the arguments of learned A.G.P. He states that in the Session 1993-94, there was reduction in number of students and number of sections and hence, the post in graduate quota was not available and the post became available only w.e.f. 1.7.1997. After hearing the respective Counsel, we find that the facts presented to us are not very clear. 1993-94 staffing pattern, as approved on 22.3.1994, show that in 1992-93 there were 14 sections in middle school for Classes 5 to 7 and in 1993-94 there were 13 sections. The number of graduate teachers available is shown to be four. It is not apparent whether all four posts were then occupied or then only three were occupied and fourth post became available again from 1.7.1997. The affidavit filed by the Education Officer also does not reveal correct position in this respect. From the same affidavit, however, it reveals that because of representation made by 3 the petitioner to the Deputy Director of Education, the said Authority directed the Education Officer to submit his report and hence, the Education Officer had called for information from the Management and that information was not received by him till the date of filing of affidavit before this Court i.e. 7.3.2011. In this situation, we find that the interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent nos. 4 and 5/Management to appear before the respondent no.3/Education Officer on 12th September, 2011 with necessary records to point out the staffing pattern sanctioned for the year 1993-94. After perusal of that record and other necessary record as also after hearing the Management and the present petitioner, the Education Officer shall take appropriate decision on the grievance of the petitioner about preponement of the date of approval. The said decision shall be taken as early as possible and in any case, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. With a direction to the parties to appear before the Education Officer on 12.9.2011, we dispose of the petition. jais JUDGE JUDGE 4