1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2009 Rajesh s/o Srinivasan Iyengar, Age 35 yrs., Occu.Stenographer, Pratibha Niketan Mahavidyalaya, Banda Ghat Road, Vazirabad, Nanded .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Higher Education, Central Building, Pune – 3 3. The Joint Director, Higher Education, Nanded Region, Nanded. 4. Bahirji Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Through its Principal, Basmath District Parbhani 5. Pratibha Niketan Mahavidyalaya, Through its Principal, Nanded, District Nanded 6. Shri Balaji s/o Piraji Nikam, Aged 39 years, Occu.Stenographer, Bahirji Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Basmath District Parbhani. .. Respondents Shri Suresh M.Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.G.Patil, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 2 ORAM: P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P.V.HARDAS, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. At the outset, Shri S.M.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner is not pressing for the reliefs prayed for at prayer clauses (C) and (D). In the light of that, the petition consequently stands dismissed as not pressed insofar as it relates to prayer clauses (C) and (D). In the light of that, therefore, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respndents 4, 5 and 6. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus : The petitioner was employed as a Junior Stenographer in the respondent No.5 College from 1993. On 19.9.2003, the petitioner was rendered surplus and, therefore, was transferred to the respondent No.4 College. The petitioner being aggrieved by his being rendered surplus and the consequent transfer, filed Writ Petition No.5205 of 2004 in this Court. This Court had issued notice before admission and ad-interim relief came to be granted in favour of the petitioner by an order of stay to 3 the order passed by respondent No.3 Joint Director transferring the petitioner to respondent No.4 College. The petitioner continued working in the said institution on account of the interim relief granted by this Court. Ultimately, on 21.7.2006 the said petition came to be dismissed and consequently, the ad-interim relief came to be vacated. The petitioner claims to be working in the respondent No.5 College but on 5.11.2007, the respondent No.3 had passed an order declaring the post of petitioner as “Unacceptable”. Consequent thereto since March 2008, the salary of the petitioner has been withheld by respondent No.3. The petitioner, as is stated before us has submitted the representation somewhere in January 2009 to the respondent No.3 Joint Director, Higher Education, Nanded Region, Nanded requesting that the petitioner who has already been declared surplus may be absorbed in some other institute. 4. The predicament of the petitioner can very well be imagined as the petitioner is without any salary and also does not have any job now as the petitioner has been rendered surplus and the challenge to his transfer to the respondent No.4 College was futile. Since the representation is pending consideration before respondent No.3, we direct respondent No. 3 to decide the said representation and if decided in favour of the petitioner, to issue necessary orders of posting of the petitioner so as to absorb him on account of his being rendered surplus. This exercise to be carried out by respondent No.3 within four weeks from today and respondent No.3 to communicate the order thereon to the petitioner. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [ R.K.DESHPANDE ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/wp3505.09) 5