JUDGMENT: S.S.Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 11.06.2015 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. There is further prayer, seeking directions to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to absorb the petitioner in the service of Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar as Para Teacher/Primary Teacher, as per the Government Resolution dated 31st July, 2009, and 1st March, 2014. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner served more than two Years i.e. from 1st October, 2005 to 31st January, 2008, in the service of Zilla Parishad Schools. But the respondent authorities have not considered the total service of the petitioner, and rejected his claim without giving any opportunity to satisfy the respondents, about his service in Vasti School. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited our attention to the various documents placed on record, showing qualifications of the petitioner. It is submitted that, the petitioner is eligible and qualified for appointment as Para Teacher with Zilla Parishad services as per the Government Resolution dated 31st July, 2009 and 1st March, 2009, and as per his experience. It is submitted that, the petitioner has legitimate expectation that, he would be made permanent or his services would be regularized, particularly when he has put more than 2 years of service, and by now, the petitioner has crossed upper age limit, and therefore, no longer eligible for public employment, on that count alone i.e. crossing to upper age limit. 4. It is further submitted that, the petitioner worked as Voluntary Teacher [ Swayamsevi Shikshak] more than two years i.e. 01.10.2005 to 31.01.2008 at Bhagwan Nagar Vasti Shala, Bharajwadi, Taluka Pathardi, and also received salary for the period from 01.10.2005 to 31.01.2008 from the respondent authority. It is further submitted that, the petitioner was appointed by the Zilla Parishad as Voluntary Teacher [Swayamsevi Shikshak] by following due recruitment procedure, and also the petitioner was worked as per the Government scheme. The service of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent on the assurance that, they will be absorbed in the Zilla Parishad services by giving him a chance of Admission in postal D.Ed. course. But, the respondent denied the services of the petitioner, is arbitrary and not following their own Resolution dated 31st July, 2009 and 1st March, 2014. 5. The service of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent on the assurance that, they will be absorbed in the Zilla Parishad services by giving him a chance of Admission in postal D.Ed. course. But, the respondent denied the services of the petitioner, is arbitrary and not following their own Resolution dated 31st July, 2009 and 1st March, 2014. 5. It is further submitted that, the Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pathardi, communicated the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pathardi that, the petitioner has rendered the services on Vasti School from 01.10.2005 till 31st January, 2008. Therefore, relying upon the pleadings and grounds taken in the Petition, annexure thereto, and the relevant Government Resolutions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 invited our attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply, and submits that, the fact finding enquiry was conducted, and it was found that, the petitioner has not completed two years period as Vasti Shala Shikshak. Therefore, he submits that, the Petition may be rejected. 7. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the grounds and pleadings taken in the petition, annexure thereto, the relevant Government Resolutions, and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce herein below the relevant provisions of the Government Resolution dated 27th September, 2011, issued by the School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, which reads thus: Upon careful reading of the contents of the afore-mentioned Government Resolution, it is abundantly clear that, the persons, who have rendered minimum 2 years service in Vasti Shala, which is closed for some reasons or closed by the Government, only said persons can be appointed as Part time teacher, subject to fulfillment of the conditions, which are laid down in the said Government Resolution. 8. It appears that, the present petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.8622/2014 [Sudhakar Manikrao Pawar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others]. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 24th September, 2014. 8. It appears that, the present petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.8622/2014 [Sudhakar Manikrao Pawar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others]. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 24th September, 2014. In pursuant to the directions given in the said Writ Petition, it appears that, the petitioner filed comprehensive application/representation. It further appears that, notice was sent to the petitioner, asking him to remain present on 11.11.2014, in the Chamber of the Chief Executive Officer for hearing. It further appears that, the impugned order is passed on 11th June, 2015, by respondent no.2 i.e. Chief Executive Officer. It would be relevant to reproduce herein below the averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3: 2. The petitioner is challenging the communication dt. 11-06-2015 passed by CEO informing the petitioner that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as Para teacher as per G.R. dt.27-09-2011 as the petitioner has not completed the required period of two years of service as a Vasti Shala Shikshak during the academic period 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Hereto annexed at Exh.R-1 is the comply of G.R.dtd.27th September, 2011. I respectfully submit that a fact finding inquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner has not completed two years’ period as a Vasti Shala Shikshak. Hereto annexed at Exh.R-2 is the copy of the said report. 3. I respectfully submit that the certificates at Exh.-E (Colly) are general in nature and the same can not be considered since only 13 students were studying in the Vasti Shala during the said period. As per the norms, minimum 20 students are required for conducting a Vasti Shala. Since, the required number of the students was not there, the Vasti Shala can not be said to be legally functioning. In view of this, the said certificates at Exh.-E cannot be taken into consideration. I therefore, respectfully submit that the order passed by CEO is quite legal and needs no interference of this Hon’ble High Court. 9. It appears that, the fact finding enquiry was conducted and it was found that, the petitioner has not completed two years period as Vasti Shala Shikshak. Therefore, the respondent authorities found that, the requirement, laid down in the Government Resolution dated 27th September, 2011, of which reference is made herein above, has not been met. 9. It appears that, the fact finding enquiry was conducted and it was found that, the petitioner has not completed two years period as Vasti Shala Shikshak. Therefore, the respondent authorities found that, the requirement, laid down in the Government Resolution dated 27th September, 2011, of which reference is made herein above, has not been met. The petitioner did not work minimum for two years as required as per the said Government Resolution. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner has worked for more than two years, deserves no consideration, inasmuch as the fact finding enquiry was conducted and it was found that, the petitioner has not completed two years period as Vasti Shala Shikshak. 10. Therefore, the petition raises disputed questions of fact, and it is not possible to entertain the Petition. Hence, petition stands rejected.