1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3451 OF 2010 Sant Kabir Manavta Sangopan Kendra Shikshan Sanstha, Aurangabad,through its President, Madhavrao Kashinathrao Sabale and others ...Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri V.V.Bhavthankar, advocate for the petitioners Shri N.B.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents/State. Shri M.P.Kale, advocate for respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : R.S.MOHITE AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 26 th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1 The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction relating to grant of approval to petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2 It is admitted position from the record that there was backlog of reservation. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been appointed on 20.6.2008. It is seen that, in so far as these 2 appointments are concerned, they have not been made after giving due advertisement, as required by Rule 9 Sub-Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981. The contention of the management, in this regard, is that the advertisement was given in the year 2007. It is, however, seen that as regards the said advertisement, since no candidates from reserved category were available, the appointments were made from the open category. 3 In our view, fresh advertisement would, therefore, be required, in case the question of filling up of backlog is required to be considered. 4 In so far as impugned order is concerned, the reason given in the impugned order is that the application for approval has not been given through the Head Master. We need not refer to the correctness of the said aspect, since from the record, we find that appointments of petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been made without following due process of giving advertisement. The idea behind giving advertisement is that people from the reserved category of good merit can become available for subsequent year, even if they were not found available in pursuance of earlier advertisement. 3 5 In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition under writ jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the management will fill up the backlog after giving fresh advertisement. Petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 will also be entitled to apply when such an advertisement is given. After following this procedure, the backlog will be filled up in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981. Fresh advertisement to be given in 4 weeks. 6 Petition is accordingly disposed of. Till fresh appointments are made, petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 may continue. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) dbm/wp3451.10