1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 1994 1] Umarkhan S/o Majidkhan Pathan, Age 30 years, Occu. Service, R/o Neknoor, Dist. Beed. 2] Alkananda d/o Maroti Munde, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, r/o at post Therla, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2] The Collector, Beed Taluka & Dist. Beed. 3] The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4] The Beed Zilla Parishad, Beed through its Chief Executive Officer. 5] The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. D.A. Karnik , Advocate for Petitioners. Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1, 2 & 5. Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 4 CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT: 2 By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking regularization of their appointments as Primary Assistant Teacher. The petitioners were appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher vide order 05/11/1988 and 14/03/1989 respectively. Their appointments were till the properly selected candidates were available from Selection Board for the said posts. It is not in dispute that, on the date of their appointments they were duly qualified. 2. Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3 & 4 vehemently opposes for regularization of the petitioners as an Assistant Teachers. She submits that petitioner are not selected through Selection Board and as such the petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 3. This Court has granted Rule in the matter on 08/07/1994. By an interim order this Court directed the respondent to appoint the petitioners and continue them as Primary 3 Assistant Teachers. The period of almost 16 years has elapsed from the date of their appointments. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are possessing qualification of S.S.C.D.Ed., which is required for appointment as Assistant Teachers. It is not disputed that the names of the petitioners are recommended by the Employment Exchange. 4. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel of the Zilla Parishad that the petitioners are not selected through the Regional Selection Board is concerned, we do not find that, the said contention would have any relevance. It is not in dispute that petitioners have been appointed long back and now so far as the appointments made in Zilla Parishad’s are concerned, the same are done by a committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Collector of which the Chief Executive Officer and the other officers of the Governments are members. In view of the continuous service of the petitioners for a period from 1988, we are of the view that they are entitled for 4 regularization. Particularly when they hold requisite qualification. 5. We therefore, find that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the concerned authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘A’. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 2047.94 WP(J)