1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3325/2008 Namdeo Vetala Kamble Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi,advocate for the petitioner Mr.C.R.Sonawane ,AGP for Res.1,2,3 Mr.Ajay A.Joshi for Res.no.4 CORAM : J.N.PATEL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 20TH APRIL,2009 P.C. . Heard finally. 1] This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by respondent no.3 dated 1510/2007 and 10/1/2008 refusing to grant approval for appointing the petitioner to the post of Instructor for Repairs of Domestic Electrical Appliances who is presently working with respondent no.5. 2] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was 2 selected for the post of the instructor for Repairs of Domestic Electrical Appliances and was given appointment on probation and he has been working there on that post since 2/8/2003 . The proposal for approval of his appointment for the said post came to be rejected by the State i.e. respondent no.3 by letter dated 22/5/2008 and thus, his post is shown as surplus and is not given approval. Hence this Petition. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Government Resolution dated 31/7/2008 and has submitted that the Government has given stay to its previous G.R.dated 22/5/2008 in which the decision in respect of staffing pattern of the concerned post was taken resulting in declaring the post of the petitioner as surplus . The learned counsel has further submitted that as in view of this Government Resolution dated 31/7/2008 he is entitled to get the approval to his post and his post should not be shown as surplus and respondent no.3 should,therefore,be directed to grant approval to his post as 'Instructor'. 4] The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1,State, in reply has submitted that the petitioner's appointment orders were subjected to the approval of respondent no.3. The Education Department has carried out the revision of staffing pattern in respect of the respondent-institution instead of five posts four are approved and one post is shown surplus. The respondent, however,submitted 3 that respondent no.3 being approving authority they have to stick to this decision taken as per the revision of staffing pattern and they could not absorb the petitioner against said post. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-management has submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated 31/7/2008 they cannot take any decision and follow the policy laid down in previous G.R.dated 22/5/2008 which is stayed by this Government Resolution . The management to follow policy in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 31/7/2008 and they are entitled to appoint the staff as per their previous staffing pattern. 5] In view of this anomaly which is created by the issuance of of the Government Resolution dated 31/7/2008 we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Education Department for re-consideration of the question of grant of approval to the petitioner. 6] Hence we direct respondent no.3 to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Government Resolution dated 31/7/2008 and to take decision within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7] The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (J. N. PATEL , J ) 4 (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)