1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5418 of 2008 [Suresh D. Raipure Vs. Education Officer (Secondary), ZP, Wardha & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. Parchure, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. Indira Bodade, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 4. Mr. A.P. Raghute, Adv., for respondent no.3. Mr. Kishore Deshpande, Adv., for Respondent No. 2. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 29th July, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. The order dated 14 th January, 2009 passed by this Court in present matter shows a limited nature of controversy. Therefore, with the assistance of parties, we have perused the replies and we find that advertisement, in response to which petitioner was appointed, did not mention any reservation and recruitment as per said advertisement was to be in Open Category. The roster placed on record by the respondent no.3 along with his affidavit, however, mentions a backlog of one Scheduled Tribe candidate in 1981-82, i.e., the academic 2 year in which the petitioner was appointed. Respondent no.3 has also attempted to focus on the situation than prevailing in para 11 of his reply-affidavit. The Municipal Council has not placed any roster on record. 3. The roster produced by respondent no.3, however, shows that in 1980-81, there was no backlog either for SC or ST and Roster Point No. 3 for NT/VT has been shown as available. In next year, i.e., 1981-82, the name of petitioner appears as employed on 30 th July, 1981, but against his name, category has been mentioned as Open. Below the said name, the backlog of S.T. Category has been mentioned as 1 and thereafter current backlog has been brought down to 0 , and it has been mentioned that the said backlog has been filled in during the year. However, again at the bottom, one post is shown as balance of backlog. Adv. Mr. Raghute has invited our attention to application made by petitioner himself to Chief Officer of Municipal Council, and according to respondent no.3, petitioner there has accepted that he was appointed against a reserved category post. 4. In view of the position emerging on record, we find ourselves unable to conclude either way and it will be appropriate for the petitioner as also respondent no.3 to appear before respondent no.1  Education Officer and satisfy Education Officer about their respective 3 claims. To enable them to do so, we quash and set aside the orders dated 16 th August, 2006 and 12 th September, 2008 passed by respondent no.1- Education Officer, and direct him to hear the petitioner as also respondent no.3 and respondent no.2-Municipal Council and to pass fresh orders as early as possible, and in any case, by 15 th November, 2009. Petition is accordingly allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. Steno copy of this order be supplied to learned AGP free of cost, to act upon. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4