1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3989/2007 (Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshan Sangh vs. Mah. Prathamik Shkshan Parishad, Mumbai and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Smt. Neeta Jog, Adv. for Petitioner Shri S.Y.Deopujari, AGP for R-1 Shri A.Y.Kapgate, Adv. for R-2 & 3. Shri N.R.Saboo, Adv. for intervenor CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 25 th JUNE, 2008. At the outset, it is placed on record that the petitioner has confined relief only in respect of primary teachers. This statement is made through counsel as well as placed on record by way of Pursis dated 25.6.2008, which is accepted. 2. Having heard counsel for the parties, we find substance in the stand taken by the petitioner that the respondents have accepted the decision of Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 5408/2007, decided on December 11, 2007, having failed to question the correctness thereof before the appropriate forum. The issue that has been considered by the Aurangabad Bench in the said decision is obviously the same as is agitated by the petitioner in the present petition. 2 3. According to the petitioner, the relevant policy was that the in-service candidate should be considered for appointment in the first place on deputation and only if that was not possible for tangible reason and in case of remaining vacancies, the direct recruitment modality could be resorted to appoint such person on contract basis. That contention has been noticed in the said decision and accepted. 4. Counsel for the respondents in all fairness accept that the Aurangabad Bench decision has not been assailed so far. If it is so, the respondents are bound by the said decision and will have to take steps to comply the directions and/or observations in the said decision. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, however, wanted us to examine the possibility of conflicting position emerging from different circulars and notifications amongst others dated 25th August, 2006 and G.R. dated 30th January, 1996. It is not necessary for us to burden this order with the said controversy. Having already observed earlier that the respondents having accepted the decision of the Aurangabad Bench are bound to give effect to the decision in its letter and spirit. If respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have any difficulty, the present proceeding is not the forum where those difficulties can be looked into. The said respondents, if so advised, may take recourse to such other remedy as may be advised in that behalf. 5. Suffice it to observe that the respondents will be bound 3 to comply with the directions or observations contained in the order dated December 11, 2007, passed in W.P. No. 5408/07 by the Aurangabad Bench. While doing so, however, respondent nos. 2 & 3 will have to keep in mind the latest policy propounded by respondent no.1 which has received approval from the Union Government as is noted in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 17th June, 2008, at page 111 and 112 of the paper-book. In that, the Government of India has granted sanction to fill up 50% of the post of Resource Persons on contract basis on the remuneration of Rs.50,000/- per annum from the month of June, 2008. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall keep that policy in mind while making appointments from the ensuing academic year for enforcement of the scheme as per the direction given by respondent No.1. 6. In view of what we have observed earlier, it is not necessary to examine any other contention raised either in the petition or at the instance of respondent nos. 2 & 3. We are also not examining the claim of the intervenors, as no substantive relief can be granted to them in the present proceeding. The intervenors, if so desire, may take recourse to such other remedy as may be advised for seeking any substantive relief. Accordingly, this petition and all derivative applications filed in the petition are disposed of on the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE 4 Rvjalit