1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3192/2010 Smt. Asha S. Shende Vs. Shri Netam The Education Officer, (Primary) Z. P. and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. P. N. Shende, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Mishra, Adv. for respondent no.1 . None for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM ; B. P. DHARMADHIKRI, J. DATED : 21st October, 2010. Heard Advocate Shende for the petitioner and Advocate Mishra for respondent no.1. None appears for respondents 2 and 3 though served. Contention of Advocate Shende is that on earlier occasion this Court remitted back the matter to the Education Officer to consider the impact of inspection report of School in the year 1988 as said inspection report proved that petitioner was in employment even in that year. According to him, the petitioner was not given any appointment order and hence she is relying upon said inspection report. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has invited attention to reply in affidavit. 2 He argues that various question on nature of appointment of petitioner in 1988 arise and as no documents were produced, respondent no.1 has chosen not to act upon inspection report. Perusal of impugned order reveals that reason given by Education Officer in his affidavit does not find mention in it. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in 1988 there was advertisement and after advertisement the petitioner was selected and appointed. In view of this, the petitioner is given one chance to file appropriate material before respondent no.1 - Education Officer to substantiate her contention that she was appointed in year 1988 itself. Such material be produced before 30.11.2010. If such material is produced, respondent no.1 shall hear petitioner as well as respondent 2 and 3 and pass appropriate orders containing all relevant reasons by 31st January 2011. For said purpose impugned order dated 16.6.2010are quashed and set aside. Petition is thus allowed. No costs. JUDGE ambulkar