 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 5397/2008 (Bharat Education Society vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 27th February, 2009. *** 1. Heard Mr A D Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr D. Duvuri, for Respondent No.3. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the communication dated 4th December, 2008 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) whereby Respondent No.3 is directed to be retained at a school located at Ramnagar Nagpur run by the petitioner-Management and one Mr., Kakpure, another Assistant Teacher, was relived from the school located at Ramnagar, and permitted to join at a school located at Mohgaon Zilpi. 3. The present litigation has a previous history which is as follows :- On earlier occasion, Respondent No.3 had filed a Writ Petiiton bearing No.3701/2008 against the transfer order dated 30.10.2007 which was disposed of as withdrawn vide an order dated  25th September 2008 and the Education Officer was directed to decide the representation of Respondent No.3. Pursuant to the said order, the Education Officer has taken a decision which is communicated by impugned communication dated 4.12.2008. 3. Mr Nitin Sambre, learned Govt. Pleader has brought to our notice that the Education Officer specifically asked the petitioner- Management to remain present on the date of hearing which was scheduled on 21.20.2008. However, since the President and Secretary of the petitioner-Management were not present, hearing of the matter was deferred to 24.11.2008. He further contended that even on that day, neither the President nor the Secretary of the Management remained present and, therefore, the representation filed by Respondent No.3 was considered by the Education Officer on the basis of the facts and material placed on record and after taking into consideration the attending circumstances passed the order dated 4.12.2008 which is impugned. 4. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management has submitted that though the President and Secretary were not present, only the Headmistress of the School which is located at Ramnagar, was present before the Education Officer and the written statement on behalf of the President and Secretary was also filed before the Education Officer. 5. In the instant case, claim of the  petitioner-management is that Resolution dated 13.10.2007 was passed by the Management whereby one Mr. Bhusari and Respondent No.3 Mr Gondane were the only Assistant Teachers who were transferred, however, the order dated 28.10.2007 which was passed pursuant to the said resolution the name of Mr. Kakpure was inadvertently mentioned though he was not transferred vide Resolution dated 13.10.2007. Mr Mohgaonnkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the record which is placed before the Education Officer by Res.No.3 in this regard was a fabricated record and not the genuine one and, therefore, the Education Officer could not have placed reliance on such record. 6. Mr D.Duvuri, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that he has obtained copy of the Resolution dated 13.10.2007 passed by the Management from the O/o Education Officer (Sec) Nagpur under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said copy of the Resolution shows that Mr Kakpure was very much part of the said resolution and his name also finds place in the said document. Counsel for Respondent No.3 has submitted that the Education Officer rightly placed reliance on this document i.e. Resolution dated 13.10.2007. 7. Considered the rival contentions contended by the respective counsel. In the instant case, the authenticity and genuineness of Resolution dated 13.10.2007 itself is in doubt. The  petitioner claims that Respondent No.3 has fabricated this document; whereas claim of Respondent No.3 is otherwise. In any case, this is a disputed question of fact and, therefore,in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, we will not be able to consider the grievance of the petitioner in respect of genuineness of Resolution dated 13.10.2007 which is the basic document on the basis of which subsequent order of transfer came to be issued. In such a peculiar circumstances, we do not propose to show indulgence in the present petition; the same is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE sahare