1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2562 OF 2011 (Surendra S. Wanjari vs. Education Officer (Secondary) & Ors.) 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 & P.D. KODE, JJ. NOVEMBER 25, 2011. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted the challenge only to entitlement of the petitioner to be considered for direct recruitment against the post of Junior Clerk. According to him, there was no advertisement and because of ban dated 05.06.2010, the papers have been fabricated. He relies upon the subsequent resolution passed by the management on 16.07.2010 to urge that there could not have been any advertisement or selection before 16.07.2010. Shri Khubalkar, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 as also Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 rely upon subsequent consideration by the Education Officer on 14.03.2011 to justify the course of action. After hearing respective counsel, we find 2 that ban imposed on 05.06.2010 is not seriously in dispute. The proceedings of hearing dated 14.03.2011 conducted by the Education Officer reveal that he has found the post available only for direct recruitment and hence claim of present petitioner for promotion misconceived. The management has pointed out to the Education Officer that Respondent No. 5 was permeated to join as Junior Clerk on 01.09.2010. Respondent No. 5 has contended that in response to the advertisement dated 21.05.2010, he has applied on 31.05.2010 and he was selected and joined on 04.06.2010. The Education Officer has then in operative part recorded that Respondent No. 5 has joined on 04.06.2010. It is apparent that the assertion of management that Respondent No. 5 has joined on 01.09.2010 is, therefore, not considered. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has contended that the Education Officer has accepted date 04.06.2010 as date of joining to avoid ban. He further states that the absence of advertisement has been overlooked. According to him, the Newspaper at Katol in which carries the alleged advertisement is a Weekly Newspaper and it does not have wide circulation. We find that the rival contentions raise 3 some disputed questions of facts. Whether the provisions of law have been complied with or not and recruitment is in accordance with law or then in breach of ban, were the questions which the Education Officer should have specifically answered. Hence, without recording any finding on any of the rival contentions, we quash and set aside the proceedings conducted by the Education Officer on 14.03.2011. We direct the Education Officer to hear all concerned again, to peruse records in this respect carefully and thereafter to pass appropriate orders afresh as early as possible and in any case within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to him. Needless to mention that Respondent No. 5 is today working as Junior Clerk and there is no point in disturbing his functioning till the Education Officer decides the controversy again. However, Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 – Management are free to implement the orders of the Education Officer passed as a result of such hearing in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 1 – Education Officer on 12th December 2011 and to abide by his further 4 instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to learned AGP. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.