1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2033/2007 (Padmarao Madhayya Kamtam VERSUS Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli thro. its C.E.O. & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. F.T. Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Bapat, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 12, 2008. Heard. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was never made from the reserve category on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school run by Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. The petitioner was considered and appointed only from the open category, and therefore, the question of terminating the services of petitioner for want of submission of caste validity certificate from the Caste Scrutiny Committee, does not arise. In order to verify the true and factual aspect of the matter, we directed Mr. M.A. Bapat, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli to verify this aspect and appraise this Court in respect of the controversy in issue. 2 Mr. Bapat, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, after seeking proper instructions from the competent authorities of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, has submitted that the order of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher issued by the Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, shows that the petitioner was appointed from the open category. He has also submitted that at the relevant time, there were vacancies to be filled in from the open category. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, at this stage, the Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli has not disputed that the appointment order of the petitioner demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner was made from the open category. However, if the said order is passed due to inadvertence or otherwise, it is always open for the Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli to take appropriate steps in this regard according to law. However, in absence thereof, it will not be possible for us, at this stage, to hold that the appointment of the petitioner was not made from the open category. In the circumstances, the impugned notice dated 26.02.2007 as well as order dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli is hereby quashed and 3 set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE APTE