1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No. 5774 of 2008 [Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Ku. Varsha Pundlikrao Mandhare & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. A.A. Naik, Adv., for Respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 23rd July, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Contention is that merely by obeying the directions issued by this Court to submit a proposal of present respondent no.1 for approval to Education Department, the petitioner cannot be said to have waived the requirement of advertisement, in pursuance of which the respondent no.1 was selected. Learned Adv. Mr. Khapre contends that it was a reserved post and respondent no.1 was not eligible for claiming appointment on it. He further states that by way of abundant precaution, application for review was filed and that application was rejected by observing that the que4stion can be adjudicated 2 bin appropriate litigation whenever it arises. It is further argued that appointment order of respondent no.1 was issued by President, and not by the Secretary of the School Committee. 3. Learned Adv. Shri Naik for respondent no.1, on the other hand, contends that there was no such stand before Division Bench or in review, and the order passed by the Division Bench has been complied with. After examining the records, the Department has approved the services of respondent no.1. He further states that respondent no.1 has worked in the school for all these years and, therefore, the alleged defect in her appointment order is only clerical or inadvertent error. 4. We have perused the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. We find that contentions being raised before us in Letters Patent Appeal were relevant when the Division Bench directed appellant-Management to submit a proposal of respondent no.1 for approval to Education Department. Those contentions were not raised then, and even order rejecting Review Application does not show that any such contentions were raised or then the leave to raise such issues in appropriate litigation was given. Consideration of learned Single Judge in this background, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. 3 5. Learned Adv. Shri Khapre has relied upon the reported judgment in case of Ashok Asramji Gabhane Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal & ors. [2003 (2) Bom.C.R. 862], to contend that as order of appointment is not issued by a Competent Authority, it is vitiated. 6. We find that after this Court directed the proposal to be submitted to Department, and after Education Department granted necessary approval, such question cannot, and does not arise for consideration. The Management was very much party to earlier litigation before Division Bench and the said ruling, therefore, is not relevant at least in present facts. 7. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Letters Patent Appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4