1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 670 OF 2010 The Conference of Churches of Christ in Western India : Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents. Mr. S M Oak with Mr. Sagar Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr. S N Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 20th April 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is not in dispute that the representation made by the Petitioner has now been forwarded to the Respondent No.3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune. The said officer is expected to decide the said representation. 3. We direct the Respondent No.3 to decide the said representation as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months from today. As a matter of fact, the Respondent 2 No.3 is obliged to decide the said representation within three months in terms of the Circular bearing No.SKN-02/2010/PK-29/A-2 dated 16th February 2010 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that till Respondent No. 3 takes final decision on the pending representation, the operation of the orders dated 17th July 2009 and 27th July 2009 be kept in abeyance. 5. We are not inclined to accept this submission of the Petitioner. Inasmuch as, if the Petitioner was to persuade the Respondent No.3 and the proposal of the Petitioner is accepted, as a necessary corollary, the authorities will have to provide commensurate salary grants in aid to the institution. 6. On the other hand, if the final decision is adverse to the Petitioner, it would result in spending public exchequer for continuing the five divisions which have been advisedly ordered to be closed in terms of the orders dated 17th July 2009 and 27th July 2009. 3 7. In the circumstances, we see no reason to accept the suggestion of the Petitioner that the said two orders be kept in abeyance till final decision is taken by the Respondent No.3. As observed earlier, the claim of the Petitioner would be subject to the out come of the decision of the Respondent No.3. It is open to the Petitioner to continue to employ the surplus staff rendered on account of closure of five divisions in terms of the orders dated 17th July 2009 and 27th July 2009 at its own risk and costs. 8. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)