1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3229/2010 (Sau. Bhagyashree Shrikant Zadgaonkar .vs. State of Mah. And others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr.A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Sonare, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Shrikant Deo, Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 28, 2011 Heard. The matter was heard before this Court on 3.2.2011 and this Court granted last chance on that day. Thereafter it came up before this Court on 14.6.2011 and we adjourned the matter for today as last chance. Today Advocate Shri Deo is seeking time on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5 to file additional affidavit. Learned AGP Shri Sonare for respondents no.1 to 3 is also seeking time to obtain appropriate instructions. Advocate Shri Mohgaonkar for the petitioner has opposed the request. Looking to the two last chances already granted, the requests are rejected. After hearing the respective counsel, we find appointment of the petitioner was/is under M.C.V.C. course. The roster looked into for finding out whether 2 approval can be given to her or not, appears to be of the other school which imparts general education. The communication dated 5.10.2007 clearly shows that the State Government has directed Assistant Commissioner (Tribal) at Amravati to maintain separate rosters for such general school and M.C.V.C. school. Perusal of the reply affidavit filed by respondents no.2 and 3 before this Court shows that they have looked into the general roster and by combination of M.C.V.C. staff with general staff, a backlog has been found. The impugned communication dated 15.2.2010 refuses approval to appointment of the petitioner because of this position. However, perusal of the communication dated 10.4.2008 forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education (M.C.V.C.) to Director (M.C.V.C.) reveals that appointment of the present petitioner along with four other lady teachers was then found to be as per roster point but in excess of sanctioned posts. In this view of the matter and particularly in the light of the Government Decision dated 5.10.2007, we find it proper to direct respondent no.3 to reconsider the entire controversy in the light of the various policy decisions of the State Government in the mater and after giving petitioner and respondents no.4 and 5 an opportunity of hearing. Only for that purpose and without concluding any finding on the issues involved, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 15.2.2010. Petitioner and respondent no.4 and 5 shall appear before respondent no.3 on 25.7.2011 and respondent 3 no.3 shall take appropriate decision in this respect as early as possible and in any case by 30.9.2011. Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai