1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2010 (Harishchandra D. Meshram ..vs.. Education Officer (Secondary), Z.P. 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, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Annop Parihar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1, Shri C.S. Kaptan, Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 21 st JUNE, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the letter dated 30-04-2009 of the Education Officer rejecting the proposal sent by respondent No.3-Institute for approval of the petitioner's appointment as Laboratory Assistant. We have perused the letter dated 30-04-2009. It clearly shows that the proposal forwarded by respondent No.3-Institute had certain deficiencies and in view thereof, the proposal was rejected. On the basis of refusal, it appears that further order, which is impugned in the present petition, was issued by respondent No.3-Institute by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Laboratory Attendant. Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that respondent No.3 shall endeavour to forward a fresh 2 proposal, as far as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the Education Officer. His statement is accepted. Respondent No.3 shall take into consideration all the deficiencies pointed out in the letter dated 30-4-2009 and shall provide all the information sought therein and shall also comply with all the formalities for seeking approval. The Education Officer shall consider the said proposal sent by respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal. After the orders are passed by the Education Officer on the fresh proposal in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.3-Institute shall reconsider their decision reverting the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Attendant and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the orders passed by the Education Officer. It is needless to state that the Education Officer shall consider the proposal that will be forwarded by respondent No.3, afresh overlooking the consequential reversion order passed by respondent No.3. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE pma 3