1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2009 Ravi s/o Sukharaj Darda, Age : 43 years, Occu. Service, R/o ravi Dresses, Ganj Golai, Main Road, Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Secretary School Education & Sports Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai 3. The Chairman of State Committee Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Zilla Parishad, Latur 4. The Chief Executive Officer, President, District Committee, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Zilla Parishad, Latur 5. The Chairman, Executive Committee, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr N.D. Sonawane,Advocate holding for Mr V.D. Hon for respondent no.4. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 5th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri R.J. Godbole, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent no.1; Shri N.D. Sonawane, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.4. None appears on behalf of respondents no.2 to 5 though served. Since no relief is sought against respondents no.2 to 5, we do not consider issuance of a notice to respondents no.2 to 5 intimating that this petition is likely to be heard finally. 3. The petitioner by this petition vide prayer clause (B) has prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in Government/Semi Government Department or in Zilla Parishad by regularising his services as per his qualification. By virtue of prayer clause (C) the petitioner has prayed for 3 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 29.8.2007 in accordance with law. 4. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 states on instructions that the representation dated 29.8.2007 has been addressed to a wrong authority and the petitioner would be required to submit a representation afresh addressing to respondent no.1. In that light of the matter, therefore, Shri R. J. Godbole, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would submit a fresh representation to respondent no.1 within two weeks from today. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, Shri Godbole, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition insofar as prayer clause (B) is concerned with liberty to file a petition afresh in respect of prayer clause (B), in the event the representation is decided adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 6. We accordingly allow this petition dismissing the petition insofar as prayer clause (B) is concerned with the liberty prayed for and permit the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondent no.1 within two weeks from today. We further direct respondent no.1 to decide the representation, if submitted by the petitioner, within four months of its submission, in accordance 4 with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp6038.09 5