1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA NO.136/2011 IN WP NO.2874/2008 (D) [Devidas s/o Vitthal Kale .vrs. Sanjay Haribhau Indane and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for appellant, Shri Anup Dhore, Advocate for respondent no.1. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 14, 2011. We are hearing the matter for last about 10 to 15 minutes. It seems that the learned counsel for the appellant is not interested in disposal of the matter and is interested only in seeking adjournment. The learned Single Judge has found respondent no.1 qualified to hold the post and the Government Resolution dated 18th August, 2004 pointed out to the learned Single Judge has been held to be prospective. Similarly, the contention that entry into the service is not legal and valid was attempted to be substantiated by producing some documents for the first time by filing review 2 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not looked into the new plea and new documents. Before us the contention is Divisional Social Welfare Officer has decided only the preliminary objection about legality of appointment of respondent no.1. We, therefore, perused impugned order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. It does not show that the appeal was considered by the said authority only on preliminary objection about the legality and validity of the appointment. The authority has found respondent no.1 not qualified to hold the post and, therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. That finding has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Even before the learned Single Judge, there was no contention that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer has decided the appeal on preliminary point only. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the LPA is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande