1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.3155 OF 2009 with Vishwanath S/o. Pandurang Taur - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others.- - Respondents Shri N. R. Pawade, Advocate holding for Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K. G. Patil, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Shri P. M. Shinde, Advocate holding for Shri S. S. Deogude, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 3521 OF 2009 with Kashinath Ramkishan Gogule - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - Respondents Shri N. R. Pawade, Advocate holding for Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri P. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 6000 OF 2009 with Shaikh Sartaj Shaikh Jakiruddin - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - Respondents Shri N. R. Pawade, Advocate holding for Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K. G. Patil, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri P. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 6176 OF 2009 with Shivraj Bhagwan Jadhav - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - Respondents Shri N. R. Pawade, Advocate holding for Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri P. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 6177 OF 2009 with Satish Asraji Jarange - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - Respondents 3 Shri N. R. Pawade, Advocate holding for Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri B. V. Wagh, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri P. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 6809 OF 2009 Laxman Arjun Chavan - - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - Respondents Shri N. R. Pawade, Advocate holding for Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri P. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 9th October 2009 ORAL ORDER [ PER B. R. GAVAI, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. It is not in dispute that the facts in the present case are identical with the facts in Writ Petition No. 3493 of 2009 which is decided by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17-8-2009. 4 3. It is not dispute that appointment of the petitioners was made prior to amendment of Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules by which percentage of reservation has been increased. 4. In that view of the matter, writ petitions are allowed by quashing the impugned order and directing the respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad to consider the case of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law and decide the proposal submitted by the management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners. We further direct that the proposals in the present case be also considered along with the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3493 of 2009 and pass and appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. Rule is made absolute. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp315509