1 df IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2137 OF 2006 (Maroti Gorakhnath Patil .v. State of Maharashtra and five others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.Y. Deopujari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Shri C.S. Kaptan, Advocate for the respondent No.6. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ. 21ST JULY, 2008 The petitioner's grievance is with regard to his post. Considering the contentions in affidavit and especially in para Nos.6 and 7 of counter affidavit dated 15.07.2008, which is reproduced as under :- “6. It is submitted that even the reasons advanced are incorrect on the face of it. Admittedly, there are four teachers with B.A., B.Ed. qualification and at least one of whom has been appointed after my first absorption. There are thus sufficient numbers of teachers who can take up the subject of Marathi and the post of teacher in the subject of English has to be held to be vacant. Further another reason advanced by them about reservation and backlog is also 2 df fallacious inasmuch as in the case of repatriation, there is no question of considering the reservation. What is required is only a vacancy and relevant educational eligibility. As such both the reasons advanced by them are wholly inapropriate and are apparently advanced only with a view to deny me the facility of being repatriated. 7. It is worthwhile mentioning here that after my being declared surplus, the management has appointed as many as six teachers without considering my legitimate claim. This by itself is an illegality which has to be dealt with by a firm hand. Further one of such teacher viz. Kum. Anila Kulkarni who has been granted approval with effect from 24-6-98 till further orders vide order dated 8-1-99 is granted conditional approval subject to permitting me to be repatriated against the vacancy. In spite of the said conditional order, for the last about 10 years, I have not been repatriated and in that view of the matter my petition deserves to be allowed with heavy and exemplary cost to be payable by the respondents 4 and 5 for denying me legal right purely to satisfy their ego. Hence 3 df this affidavit.”, we direct the respondent No.2, Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, to decide the controversy in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks i.e. by 15th September, 2008, by giving full opportunity to both the parties. The petition is accordingly disposed of by keeping all points open. The parties to appear before the respondent No.2 on 11th August, 2008. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.