1 wp4526.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4526 OF 2011 Sambha S/o Parasram Dhole, Age : 41 years, Occ : Service as Assistant Teacher in Secondary School at Himayatnagar, R/o Himayatnagar, Tq. Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director, Maharashtra State Council for Educational Research & Training, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Marg, Pune-411 030. 3. Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Nanded. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 5. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded. 6. The Head Master, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded ..RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.G. Rodge, advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.P. More, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 Shri V.S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5 Shri S.S. Deshmukh (Patnoorkar), advocate for respondent no.6 ..... (CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 15th September, 2011 2 wp4526.11 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. By way of present Petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent nos. 3 and 4 to forward the application of the petitioner for admission to Postal D.Ed. Course for the year 2010-2011. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is duly appointed with respondent no.6 w.e.f. 10th November, 2006 as an untrained teacher. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner have been duly approved as an untrained teacher by respondent no.4. The petitioner had applied for Postal D.Ed. course for the academic year 2010-2011. Since, the same is not forwarded to respondent no.3, the petitioner had approached this Court. 4. Shri V.S. Panpatte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submits that since the application form of the petitioner was not received through proper channel prior to 19th March, 2011 and as such it was not within time, as such, it was not forwarded. It is however, submitted that subsequently on 18th July, 2011, the application form is forwarded to respondent no.2 through respondent no.3. 5. From perusal of the document, which is produced at page no. 37 3 wp4526.11 reveals that the proposal of the petitioner is forwarded by the respondent no.6 on 15th March, 2011 and is duly signed by the Block Education Officer. 6. In view of this documentary evidence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of Shri Panpatte that the proposal is not received prior to 19th March, 2011. In any case, if there is delay that was at the end of Block Education Officer, for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. 7. Since the proposal is already forwarded to respondent no.2, we direct that the said proposal be treated to have been within time and if the petitioner is otherwise qualified for being admitted to the Postal D.Ed. course, admit him for the academic year 2010-2011. 8. Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) ( B.R. GAVAI, J.) ga swp4526.11