1 8557.10 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8557 OF 2010 Kazi Faroza Vahidali ...Petitioner Versus State Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Adwait Sethna with Ms.Parul Sharma & Mr.S.D.Bhhosale for Petitioner. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- JUNE 8, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ against the respondents to sanction grant in favour of the petitioner in terms of Resolution passed by respondent No.3 recommending the name of the petitioner for the grants. Further, consequential reliefs have been prayed in this Writ Petition. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in service of respondent No.3 School since April, 2005. She 2 8557.10 came to be appointed after appropriate Resolution was passed by the Management in that behalf. It is her case that she has been lawfully appointed by the Management on the post of Assistant Lady Teacher. However, subsequently, the Management appointed some other employee as soon as grants became available to the Management on the basis of the employment of the petitioner in the respondent No.3 School. The petitioner is relying on Circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 3rd July, 2002 which was issued to deal with such situation. The said Circular envisages that inquiry into grievance such as made by the petitioner should be undertaken by the Education Officer/Divisional Deputy Director of Education, who in turn, should issue necessary directions to the Management as may be warranted in the given situation. 3. In the circumstances, instead of going into the several facts urged by the petitioner, in the present proceedings, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Petition with direction to the Education Officer to examine the grievance of the petitioner expeditiously and to issue appropriate directions to the Management, if required, or make recommendation to the Government to issue further grants to the respondent No.3 School if the said School is eligible in that behalf. We adopted this course as we found 3 8557.10 that the petitioner had made representation to the Education Officer as back as on 15th February, 2010 followed by another representation dated 25th February, 2010. However, the petitioner has not received any communication from the Office of the Education Officer. In all probability, that means that the Education Officer has not taken any decision on the representation made by the petitioner either way so far. It is also possible that the Education Officer may have taken decision but the same is not communicated to the petitioner or the Management, as the case may be. 4. In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition with direction to the Education Officer to take appropriate decision, if already not taken, as may be advised, by giving an opportunity to the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible, in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date when this order is brought to his notice either by the petitioner or by the Office of the Government Pleader, whichever is earlier. 5. We make it clear that all questions are left open and we are not expressing any opinion either way on the merits of the contentions and the reliefs prayed by the petitioner in the present Petition. 4 8557.10 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)